mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2942 OF 2009 Arti S. Thorat ... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra ... Respondents ... Mr.Wasim Ansari i/b O.A. Siddiqui for petitioner Mr.A.S. Shitole APP for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 4th December 2009 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order of conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The only ground that was urged before me is that the matter may be remanded back as the petitioner had not engaged a lawyer before the trial court. In my view, that cannot be a ground for the remand. Petitioner was free to engage a lawyer but she chose to defend a case for herself. That was out of her own wish. Her statement was recorded u/s.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in reply to question no. 9, she stated that she was ready to pay the amount in instalments. It is thus clear that she did not dispute her liability but only prayed for instalment. 4. Petitioner had filed a revision before the Sessions Court in Criminal revision No.570 of 2009. The grievance was made before the Sessions Judge that she was not given an opportunity to cross examine the complainant nor given an opportunity to adduce her evidence. That contention has been negatives by the Sessions Court. I have perused the answer to question nos.7 and 8 put to the petitioner u/s.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In response, petitioner had clearly stated that she did not wish to examine her nor did she want to examine any witness in the matter. In the circumstances, I see no error committed by the Sessions Court in rejecting the contention that proper opportunity was not given to the petitioner. 5. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)