1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.643 of 2009 (for bail) IN Criminal Revision Application No.643 of 2009 Shri Prakash Velji Ganatra .. .. Applicant v/s. Shri Ashok Babulal Thakkar & ors. .. .. Respondents Mr.Ganesh Gole for Applicant. Mr.Shailesh More, APP for State. ---- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 6th November 2009 P.C. : 1.The Applicant has been convicted and sentenced to suffer a simple imprisonment for 6 months, upon the Complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act), consequent upon the two dishonoured cheques of Rs.2 Lakhs each issued by the Applicant in favour of Respondent No.1. 2.Mr.Gole has drawn my attention to the Notice of Demand dated 31.3.2004. Paragraph 6 thereof relates to two cheques of Rs.2 Lakhs each and states that both were dishonoured, whereas paragraph 7 calls upon the 2 Applicant herein to clear the liability of Rs.2 Lakhs in respect of those cheques (and not Rs.4 Lakhs which was the consolidated amount under both the cheques). 3.Mr.Gole contends that, therefore, no Complaint could have been filed upon such an erroneous Notice of Demand. 4.The Notice of Demand has remained unreplied. 5.The Complaint shows a friendly loan of Rs.25 Lakhs granted against the 7 post-dated cheques and a writing dated 22.3.2003 witnessed by one independent person. 6.The cross-examination of the Complainant shows that the accused had requested the loan in 2001, but the transaction took place in 2002. The receipt of amount was acknowledged in December 2002 and the disputed cheques were issued in March 2003. Those were 7 cheques of Rs.2 Lakhs each. The Applicant agreed to produce income-tax returns, in which the transaction was stated to have been reflected. However, on the next date of hearing, he produced the income-tax returns for the year 2003-04 along with the balance-sheet. It is not shown whether that was the Assessment Year or the Financial Year. 3 7.The evidence also shows that the cheques were issued not only in the office of the Applicant but in CID office of Ghatkopar Police Station and the employee of the Applicant was called there, who signed on the writing which was previously executed by the Applicant. The Applicant contends that that was executed under force. 8.A reading of the entire evidence shows that at the CID office, the Applicant did issue the 7 cheques. This was shown to have been in settlement of certain claim as per the evidence of DW1. DW1 stated that he could identify the cheques. The writing was not executed in the presence of DW1, but previously. 9.It is only upon a notice being issued that accounting for the amount of Rs.25 Lakhs could be explained by Respondent No.1. Pending that, the Applicant desires to be released on bail. 10.On depositing Rs.2 Lakhs in this Court, the Applicant shall be entitled to be released on bail. 11.The Application is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)