1 APPLN157/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.157 OF 2010 Shri Balasaheb Kondaji Kedar .... Applicant. V/s Nashik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Anr. .... Respondents. Mr. S.K. Shinde for the applicant. Mr. R.M. Haridas i/b P.N. Joshi, advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr. A. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 19th November, 2010 P.C:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. 2. Applicant is challenging the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate on a complaint filed by Respondent No.1 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the entire cause of action has arisen at Sinnar. The statutory notice was also received by 2 APPLN157/2010 the applicant at Sinnar and, therefore, the Nashik Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain this application. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 submitted that the trial has commenced. Plea was recorded in 2007. Affidavit in lieu of evidence was also filed on 15/3/2007. The cross-examination is started and, therefore, at this stage, the Court cannot interfere with the order of issuance of process. 5. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Subramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra and anorhter1, there is some substance in the submission made by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.1. Since trial has commenced, in view of various judgments of the Apex Court, it will not be possible now to entertain this application for returning the complaint on the ground of jurisdiction. 6. Application is therefore dismissed. However, the applicant is exempted from appearing in Trial Court. His statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C may be recorded through his advocate provided he gives an undertaking that he shall not dispute the correctness of the answers given through his advocate. The learned Magistrate shall follow the procedure laid down under section 313 sub-clause (5). However, if the applicant’s counsel remains absent in Trial Court on two dates, exemption granted by this Court may be 1 2005 SCC (Cri) 242 3 APPLN157/2010 vacated by the learned Magistrate. Hearing of the trial is expedited. 7. Application is disposed off. V.M. KANADE, J.