1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2872 OF 2007 Rajesh N. Morghade ..vs.. Sanket Finance and another. =================================== CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE: 11.01.2008 Heard Mrs. Bhambhawani, learned counsel for applicant- original accused and Mr. Rohit Dixit, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-original complainant. Rule. The accused-applicant is challenging the order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, Nagpur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 9118/06 by which he had ordered issue of process against him upon the complainant of respondent No.1. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the matter is heard finally with the consent of the parties. The relevant order of the learned Magistrate reads thus : “Perused the complaint and documents filed with it. Heard learned Advocate for complainant. It appears that the accused had issued two cheques bearing No. 749006 dated 02/02/2006 for Rs. 2,00,000/- and No. 749575 dated 02/02/2006 for Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant which was dishonoured by bank on 06/02/2006 for the reason 'insufficient funds'. So, the complainant issued notice dated 07/03/2006 which was received by the accused on 08/03/2006. But the accused did not pay the aforesaid Cheque amounts within stipulated period and hence the 2 complainant has filed the present case on 24/04/2006. Prima facie case is made out against the accused. Hence issue process against the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On P. F.” It thus appears from the aforesaid contentions of the order that the learned Magistrate had issued process having perused the complaint and documents filed with it and he had heard learned Advocate for the complainant. It is the grievance of the applicant/accused that the learned Magistrate had not recorded verification statement of the complainant in pursuance of the decision of this Court reported in 2007 ALL MR(Cri) 1339 Maharaja Developers & Anor..vs.. Udaysing s/o Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anor. It is also grievance of the applicant-accused that the complaint of the complainant was time barred inasmuch as it was due to be filed on 22.4.2006 or it should have been on 23.4.2006 if 22.4.2006 was a holiday. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed submissions saying that the order of the learned JMFC is correct As regards issuance of process without recording verification statement of the complainant, suffice it to say; now it is settled law in view of the reported judgment in the case of Maharaja Developers & Anr...vs.. Udaysingh P. Bhonsle & Anor(supra) that the verification statement of the complainant has to be recorded before an order of the issue of process against the accused. As such, the order the learned Magistrate to that extent seems to be incorrect. 3 As regards, the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant-accused regarding the complaint time barred, I may add that I have perused the calender of 2006 produced by the learned counsel for the parties, which shows that 22.4.2006 was 4th Saturday and 23.4.2006 was the Sunday. Therefore, ex facie, the complaint does not seem to be barred by limitation, because the same was filed on 24.4.2006. However, as this point has not been raised before the trial Court, it is left open to the parties to raise it before the learned Trial Judge. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside, however, with a liberty to the complainant to lead verification statement, which Magistrate shall record in pursuance of reported judgment in the case of Maharaja Developers & Anr...vs.. Udaysingh P. Bhonsle & Anor(supra) and thereafter, he shall continue with the proceedings in the complaint, according to law. With these directions, the application stands disposed of. Rule is discharged. JUDGE jsa.