1 Cri.WP695/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.695/2010 Prashant s/o Govindrao Ige - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Sachin s/o Rangnath Tigeele and another. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.DG Chewale, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.NB Jadhav, Adv. For Resp.No;1. Mr.VD Rakh, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 27th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard finally. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to the statutory notice, served upon the petitioner herein, he disputed of issuing the cheque to the drawee, claiming that it was a blank-signed cheque, which he has left in his diary and since the diary was lost, the complainant received the cheque and it has been misused. In an out-going proceedings moved by the complainant, at the stage of evidence, the matter was referred for 2 Cri.WP695/2010 settlement before the Lok Adalat, wherein a pursis was moved, in which Accused passingly accept reference of issuance of the cheque. In the affidavit on behalf of the Petitioner(Accused), an explanation is sought to be made to worth of Purshis, which in fact is, an eye-wash. 2) In view of Section 20 of Negotiable Instruments Act, there operates an authority in a holder of negotiable instrument. 3) Reliance to the judgment in the matter of T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R.Muralidhar reported in 2008 (6) Mah.L.J. 515 (paragraph 5 thereof) need not be disputed to the legal status and to the position of law. However, it will not be a accelerating feature for the present controversy. 4) The legal position was also explained by the Hon'ble Lordships in the matter of M/s Suryalaxmi Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Rajver Industries Ltd. And Ors. ( AIR 2008 SC 1683 (1), wherein in paragraph 23, the Hon'ble Lordships have observed, as under, - "23. Filling up of the blanks in a cheque by itself would not amount to forgery." 5) In the situation, the application 3 Cri.WP695/2010 demonstrate an attempt to protract the proceedings. The applicant herein did not mend his ways even in the Lok Adalat and ensure successfully in dragging the matter. Consequently, the order under challenge dated 23.6.2010 does not call for interference. 6) Considering the age of the matter, the learned Judge, seized with the matter, shall expeditiously dispose of the case. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. Criminal Writ Petition lacks merit, dismissed. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/