REVN.433-10 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION No. 433 OF 2010 Mrs. Sheetal Ashish Mutha & Anr. ...Applicants Vs. Mrs. Rekha Prithviraj Oswal & Anr. ...Respondents *** Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, for the Applicants. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for the Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 24, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. The applicants are challenging the order dated 3rd July, 2007 passed by the Sessions Court. By the said order, revision application filed by Respondent No.1 herein was partly allowed and the trial Court’s order discharging the applicant/accused of the offences punishable under S. 138 read with S. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was aside and a direction was given to the trial Court to frame charge under S. 138 read with 141 of the N. I. Act. REVN.433-10 - 2 - 2. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicant No.1 was wife of original accused No.1 and that the cheque was issued from his personal account and therefore, applicant Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under S. 141 of the N.I. Act. 3. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court and also the complaint and the evidence which is being recorded by the trial Court before framing the charge. In my view, there is sufficient material on record to indicate that the said cheque was issued by the original accused No.1 for and on behalf of the Company. This being the position, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants. Ultimately, the said question will have to be decided at the time of trial. Hence, no case of interference in the impugned order is made out. The criminal revision application is dismissed. 4. Applicant No.1 is, however, exempted from appearing in the trial Court. If her plea is not recorded, it may be recorded through her advocate. Her statements under S. 313 Cr. P. C. may be recorded through her advocate, provided she gives an undertaking to the trial Court that she will not dispute the correctness of the answers recorded in REVN.433-10 - 3 - the said statements, the evidence which is recorded in her absence, and also her identity. The advocate appearing on behalf of applicant No.1 shall cooperate with the learned Magistrate. If he remains absent on more than two days, the learned Magistrate may proceed to pass appropriate orders for the purpose of securing presence of applicant No.1. [ V. M. KANADE J.]