- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2541 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.2541 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.2541 OF 2006 J.S.Bhat & Others ...Applicants vs. Satish P.Dholkia & Anr. ...Respondents Ms B.P.Jakhade for the applicant Ms P.P.Shinde A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JULY 29,2008 : JULY 29,2008 : JULY 29,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants. The Applicants have been arraigned as accused in a complaint filed by the first Respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. Process was issued by the learned Magistrate. A Revision Application was filed by the Applicants before the Sessions Court for challenging the order issuing process. The said Revision Application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the Applicants is that the cheques were dishonoured as the Income Tax Department had frozen the concerned accounts. Reliance is placed on the documents at Exh.C and Exh.D (page 68 and 69) in support of the said contention. Reliance is also placed on a decision of Calcutta High Court in case of Fateh Chand Bhansali & others vs. Hindusthan Development Corporation Limited [2005 (2) Bankmann 88). - 2 - 3. At the outset, it must be stated that though the order issuing process on a private complaint filed by the first Respondent has been challenged in this application, even a copy of complaint has not been annexed to the application. Reliance placed on documents at page 68 and 69 will not help the Applicants. The said documents show that the pay orders dated 15th September 1998 and 10th December 1998 were found at the time of search and survey by the Income Tax Department. These two documents do not prove the fact that when the cheques were presented by the first Respondent, the accounts were frozen by the Income Tax Department. 4. Reliance placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court will not help the Applicants as it was a case where the Reserve Bank of India had passed an order under the provisions of section 45 MB (2) of Reserve Bank of India Act restraining the accused from selling, alienating, creating charge or mortgaging or dealing in any manner with the property or assets of the accused company. Thereafter, a specific order was passed by the Reserve Bank of India directing the freezing of the accounts of the accused company. 5. No case is made out for interference. Application is rejected. It is, however, made clear that all contentions of the applicants on merits of the pending complaint are expressly kept open. - 3 - JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE