WP.3179-09 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 3179 OF 2009 M/s. Palam Pharma Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. S. G. Rajput, for the Petitioners. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are challenging the order of issuance of process, passed by the learned Magistrate on the complaint filed under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he had given a ‘stop payment’ notice to the bank on 7th April, 2007. It is submitted that, however, the cheques were deposited in the bank on 10th October, 2007, therefore, the said cheques were presented beyond the period of limit of six months. It is submitted that the petitioners in their WP.3179-09 - 2 - reply to the statutory notice, had specifically taken this ground. However, no reply was given by the complainant and straight way a complaint was filed. 2. Secondly, it is submitted that the petitioners are permanently residing in the State of Gujrat and the learned Magistrate without holding an inquiry under S. 202 Cr.P.C., and without postponing the order of issuance of process, has passed the impugned order. It is not possible to accept this submission since in the complaint there is a specific averment that the cheque was deposited not in April 2007 but in September 2007. This being the position, this issue will have to be decided only after the evidence is led by both the parties. 3. Thirdly, so far as the issue of inquiry under S. 202 Cr.PC. is concerned, in the present case, admittedly, the plea has been recorded and the evidence has also commenced and therefore, it will not be possible at this stage to go into this question. It is always open for the petitioners to raise this issue at the final hearing of the case. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 4. Since the plea of the petitioners is already recorded, in my view, presence of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is not necessary at each and every date of the trial, if their advocate remains present on the future WP.3179-09 - 3 - dates. Even their statements under S. 313 Cr. P. C. may be recorded through the advocate, provided they furnish an undertaking to the trial Court that they will not question the correctness of the answers given in the statement. Accordingly, the petitioners are exempted from appearing in the trial Court, subject to the aforesaid terms. . The writ petition is therefore, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. [ V. M. KANADE J.]