rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2142 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2142 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2142 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2143 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2143 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2143 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2144 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2144 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2144 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2145 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2145 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2145 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2007 Sandip Venture (Trading)Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2147 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2147 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2147 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2148 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2148 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.2148 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2149 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2149 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2149 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2150 OF 2007 Enamel House & Anr. .. Petitioners. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2151 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2151 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2151 OF 2007 2 Akshat Entrprises & Anr. .. Petitioners. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr.Girish Kulkarni with Smt. Pushpa Goswami for the Petitioners. Mr.S.R.Ganbawala for Respondent No. 2 in W.P.No.2142 of 2007. Mrs.P. P. Shinde, A.P.P. for the State in W.P.No.2142 of 2007 to 2144 of 2007. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, A.P.P. for state in W.P. Nos. 2145 of 2007 to 2148 of 2007. Mrs.Alfa Jhaveri, A.P.P. in W.P. Nos. 2149 of 2007 to 2151 of 2007. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 1ST FEBRUARY,2008. DATE : 1ST FEBRUARY,2008. DATE : 1ST FEBRUARY,2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . The present Petitioners are the original accused whereas the Respondent no.2 is the Complainant. The Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the present Petitioners. The Trial Court passed orders for issue of process. The said orders were challenged by filing writ petitions in the Court without availing of the alternative remedy that was available to the present Petitioners in the form of Revision before the Sessions 3 Judge. As such, this Court rejected the Writ Petitions with liberty to the Petitioners to file Revisions before the Sessions Court. Present Petitioners preferred the Revision before the Sessions Court calling in question the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the Magistrate of issue process. The Sessions Judge being prima facie convinced that there was material available before the Magistrate for issue of process, has rejected the Revisions by the impugned order dated 18th July, 2007. It is this order rejecting the Revision which is challenged by filing the present Writ Petitions. It will not be out of place to mention at this juncture that one of the witness on behalf of the complainant has already been examined and cross-examined. 2. At this stage, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the on-going trial, entertaining petitions calling in question of issue process order. The only apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that the observations made by the Sessions Court would influence the Magistrate while deciding the complaint. The learned counsel has pointed out that the Revisional Court has recorded a 4 finding that there did exist a legally recoverable due, for the payment of which cheques were issued. He submits that if the said finding is not interfered with, it will weigh with the Trial Court and would result in miscarriage of justice. The apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners is wholly misconceived in as much as the observations made in relation to the issue process order would always be prima facie in nature and not conclusive. At the initial stage, the Court is required only to find out as to whether process need to be issued or otherwise. 3. The learned counsel for the Respondent does not dispute that the observations made by the Sessions Judge being prima facie in nature cannot bind the Trial Court. Hence, at this juncture I decline to entertain the petitions and the same are dismissed summarily. 4. However, I clarify that the Trial Court shall proceed to decide the complaint on merits uninfluenced by the observations made by the Sessions Judge in its Judgment and order dated 18th July, 2007. (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE,J.)