1 (crim.wp 2939 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2939 OF 2010 Sikandar Usmanso Desai ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents ****** Mr.A.S. Patil for Petitioner Mr.P.S. Hingorani -APP for the State ****** CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED:3RD DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted that the verification has not been properly recorded by the learned Magistrate and a detailed enquiry which is required to be made under section 200 of Cr.P.C., was not made by the learned Magistrate. It was submitted that the enquiry under section 200 of Cr.P.C. is not an empty 2 (crim.wp 2939 of 2010) formality. It was further submitted that the said enquiry reflects all the necessary details and facts in the verification of the complaint i.e. cheque number, cheque date, cheque amount, name of the drawer’s bank, name of the drawee’s bank, date of presentation of cheque, date of receiving intimation of dishonour of cheque, date of notice of demand, date of service of notice, date of filing of complaint etc. In support of the said submissions, he invited my attention to the verification recorded by the learned Magistrate. He submitted that the Sessions Court dismissed the revision application filed by the Applicant herein. In support of the said submissions, he relied on the two judgments; one of the Gujarat High Court and another judgment of this Court in the cases of Dr.Rajan Sanatkumar Joshi vs. Rajnikant Govindlal Shah and Anr. [2008 ALL MR (Cri) Journal 22] and Amarnath Baijnath Gupta & Anr. vs. M/s. Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 184] 3. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. In a complaint, which is filed under section 138 of the Negotiable 3 (crim.wp 2939 of 2010) Instruments Act, a presumption is raised under section 139 regarding the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Along with the complaint if the cheque is produced, the cheque number, proof of service, bank memo of dishonour is produced, it is not necessary to mention the cheque number, cheque date, cheque amount, name of the drawer’s bank etc. The learned Magistrate has to apply his mind to find out whether the ingredients of the offence under section 139 of the N.I. Act are culled out from the verification statement. In the present case, perusal of the verification statement clearly discloses that all the ingredients for the offence under section 138 are mentioned and on perusal of the said statement, process was issued. In any event, recording of improper verification is not an illegality. At the highest, it can be said that it is an irregularity. However, the said irregularity does not vitiate the order of issuance of process. The ratio of the judgments, therefore, on which the reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, will not apply to the facts of the present case. 4. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. Hearing of the trial is expedited. The Trial Court, however, may 4 (crim.wp 2939 of 2010) consider the application of the Petitioner for grant of exemption favourably and shall not insist on his presence, unless it is absolutely necessary. Writ petition, therefore, is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (V.M. KANADE J.)