1 WP : 33/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUARE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 33 OF 2011 Manikant Madhukar Mathure .... Petitioner (Ori. accused) vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents (Ori. complainant) Mr. Kedar Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for State. CORAM : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 4th February, 2011. P.C. 1. This writ petition is preferred to challenge the order dated 10th November 2010 passed by the Sessions Court on Criminal Revision Application No.248 of 2009. The petitioner is the original accused in the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. The order impugned in the application the revision application arising out of an application filed by the petitioner for production of original summons. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that production of original summons is crucial for the petitioner in the facts of the present case, because according to the petitioner, the address stated on the original summons is the address where the petitioner is not residing. It is the same address at which statutory notice is said to have been served upon the petitioner. 2. The proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act were filed in the year 2001. After service of summons, the petitioner 2 WP : 33/2011 appeared before the Court on 22nd August 2002 and participated in the proceedings. Thereafter the complaint was dismissed for default. The order of dismissal was set aside by this Court by its order dated 8th December 2005 in Criminal Application No.75 of 2004. Thereafter the parties went for trial. The evidence of the respondent was recorded and also certain witnesses examined. Thereafter statement of petitioner under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 12th June 2009. In his statement, the petitioner admitted issuance of the cheque and contended that he would examine certain witnesses to establish that the transaction between the parties was of hand loan given by the cheque in question. According to the petitioner, there is no outstanding liability. It is not the case of the complainant that there was no service of summons upon him. As the allegation of forgery of the original summons comes at the fag end of the trial, the Sessions Court dismissed the revision application holding that the application was nothing but an attempt on the part of petitioner of delaying the completion of the trial. It is admitted position that the summons has been served upon the petitioner on the changed address. In that circumstance, production of the original summons can make no difference whatsoever. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)