bsb 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 WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 2398 OF 2007 Shri Vishnu Kumar Bhaiya ... Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Arshad Shaikh with Mr.Benny Joseph i/by M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the petitioner. Mr.D.P.Adsule, A.P.P. for the respondent No.1 State. Mr.Subhash Jha and Yashpal Thakur i/by M/s.Paras Kahad & Associates for the respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 10TH JUNE, 2008 10TH JUNE, 2008 10TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. This petition challenges the order passed by the Sessions Court dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to pay the cost of Rs.5000/- and the trial Court has been directed to dispose of the complaint as early as possible and in any event before 31.5.2008. 2. The main contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the complaint is delayed since it has been filed only on 10.6.1996. He submits that on 8.6.1996, a fax notice was received by the petitioner 2 calling upon him to make the payment of the amount of the dishonoured cheques. The issuance of this fax notice has been denied by the complainant. It is only on the basis of this fax notice that the learned advocate for the petitioner contends that the complaint ought to have been filed in April, 1996 itself and not in June, 1996. 3. Whether the fax notice has been issued to the complainant is a question of trial which will be decided on evidence at the trial. The process need not be recalled only on the submission made that such a fax notice was received. In my opinion, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. 4. The other contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner is that the amount of Rs.5,000/- is excessive and according to him, this cost has been levied only because the complaint has been pending since 1996. He submits that the petitioner cannot be accused of delaying the matter and, therefore, the cost imposed must be set aside. In my view, this submission cannot be accepted. The Additional Sessions Judge has considered the facts and circumstances as revealed from the order and has directed the payment of cost. 3 5. Writ petition rejected. 6. The Sessions Judge has directed that the trial should be completed by 31.5.2008. The trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the trial and decide the same within six months from today if possible since the complaint is of the year 1996.