spb/- 1 15-10-al2491-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2491 OF 2010 Mr. Manish Kumar Agrawal & Ors. ... Applicants. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. ...... Mr. Sandeep Karnik i/by A.H.H. Ponda for the Applicants. Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/by Paras Kuhad & Associates for Respondent No.2. Mr.P. S. Hingorani, APP for the State. ...... CORAM : V. M. KANADE, J. DATE : 15TH OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard. 2 The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that Mr. A.H.H.Ponda, Advocate, who is appearing in this case is busy in some other court. He submits that the matter may be kept back. This application is pending for some time in this court, hence, request for adjournment is declined. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 submits that the applicant no.2 is signatory to the cheque and the application filed by the co-accused has been dismissed. The present application has been filed,challenging the order of issuance of process by the learned Magistrate on a complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the spb/- 2 15-10-al2491-10.sxw applicants submits that the verification statement under section 200 is recorded mechanically on a prepared format and therefore, this is gross violation of the guidelines laid down by this court in the case of Amernath Vaijnath Gupta & Anr. vs. Mohini Organic Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2009 ALL MR (Criminal) 148. Consequently, it is submitted that the mandatory provisions of section 202 of the Cr.P.C. have not been complied with by the learned Magistrate. In my view, the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicants cannot be accepted. It is settled position in law that irregularity, if any, in recording verification statement is not a material irregularity in view of the provisions of sections 461 and 462 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 465 sub-clause (2) of the Cr.P.C. and as such on account of improper recording, no prejudice is caused to the accused and therefore, it does not vitiate the order of issuance of process. 4 Sofar as non-compliance of section 202 is concerned, this court has already held in the case of Bansilal Kabra by order dated 9th July, 2010 that the said provision is directory and not mandatory, after relying on various judgments of the Apex Court. 5 Hence, no case is made for interference with impugned order of issuance of process. Trial is expedited. [V.M. KANADE, J.]