1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 136 OF 2009 Ramesh s/o Raghunath Partani age 48 years, occ. Business r/o 37-A, Himani Complex, Jahindnagar, Bhushannagar Kedgaondevi Ahmednagar. .. PETITIONER VERSUS Om Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Mariyadit Ahmednagar, Through its Manager Shri Sunil s/o MohanirajHatwalne age 38 years, occ. Service r/o Station Road, Ahmednagar. ` .. RESPONDENT Shri N.C. Garud, Advocate for the petitioner. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 25 th June, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1- Heard Shri Garud, learned counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of issuance of notice to the respondent, none appears. 2- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 3- Prosecution has been lodged by the respondent in respect of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as for offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Examination in chief of the complainant is stated to be over whereas the accused / petitioner herein was required to cross examine the complainant. However, on the given date as the counsel for the petitioner was not present, cross examination of the complainant could not be recorded. Trial court, therefore, forfeited the right of the accused to cross examine the complainant. An application was tendered by the accused requesting the court to direct the complainant to make himself available for cross examination. Trial court, however, rejected the application holding that sufficient opportunity has been extended to the accused however, he has not availed the opportunity. On presentation of the petition in this court raising challenge to the order passed by the learned Magistrate, this court while directing issuance of notice to respondent further directed the petitioner herein to deposit 50% of the cheque amount before the trial court within a period of one week. It is stated that accordingly the accused has deposited Rs.4,000/- before the trial court. Inspite of issuance of notice, none appears for respondent. In these circumstances, the matter is taken up for disposal. 4- Considering the facts and circumstances stated in the petition, the petitioner needs to be extended an opportunity to cross examine the complainant. Petitioner has also complied with the directions in respect of deposit of amount and has deposited Rs.4,000/- before the trial court. Amount deposited by the petitioner before the trial 3 court would be subject to final outcome of the complaint before the Magistrate. In this view of the matter, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order passed by the trial court stands quashed and set aside. Petitioner be extended an opportunity to cross examine the complainant. Rule is accordingly made absolute. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/cwp136.09.odt