1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 374 OF 2006 WITH CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 375 OF 2006 WITH CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 376 OF 2006 WITH CRI. REVISION APPLICATION NO. 377 OF 2006 Bhupendra s/o Jassubhai Patel, Aged 68 years, Occupation Nil, Resident of Shrinath Apartment, New Samarth Nagar, Aurangabad Applicant V E R S U S 1. Prithviraj s/o Ambalal Patel, Aged 58 years, Occupation Business, Resident of A.P. Patel and Company, Jalna, District Jalna 2. The State of Maharashtra Respondent Mr. N.G. Shah, Adv h/f Mr. N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the applicant Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP for the respondent No.2 / State CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 6th October, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. These revisions are filed against the concurrent findings of the Courts below that the applicant / accused had committed offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in all the four cases which the respondent No.1 had filed against him. 2. The applicant did not deny the issuance of cheques in question, but asserted that he was coerced into handing over these cheques. The Courts below negated this contention for want of evidence. The second defence of the applicant was that the respondent No.1’s civil suit to recover the amount sought to be paid through the cheques was 2 dismissed for want of limitation etc, and so, the amount due through the cheques is not legally enforceable debt. The third defence of the applicant is that the respondent was a partner of a partnership firm, and so, he could not have individually filed the complaints. The Courts below held that on the day when the cheques were given, the partnership had already dissolved due to death of the other partner and the respondent No.1 was fully entitled to recover the amount assuming it was given to the Firm. In any case, the amount was made payable to the respondent No.1 individually. The dismissal of the suit is of no avail, because as soon as the cheques were presented within time and failed, the action under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was initiated. It was within the choice of the respondent No.1 / complainant as to whether he would file the suit for recovery of amount or not. He could have maintained the suit, if he had filed the suit within limitation. If he did not file the suit within limitation, then the suit would fail. But, that by itself would not make the amount due not recoverable lawfully. The amount would still be recoverable because the complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were filed within limitation. 3. Before I dismiss these revisions, I must mention one peculiar fact of this case. When these revisions were filed and when the applicant sought bail in these cases, he was asked to deposit Rs. 75,000/- in each case as condition precedent for his release on bail. So, the applicant was almost compelled to deposit part of the cheques amount in the Court. Even today the applicant is absent and his Advocate was trying to seek adjournment. The revisions are pending since last four years and I thought it necessary to dispose them of as soon as possible. In view of above, all the revisions thus shall fail. All the revisions stand dismissed. The bail bonds of the applicant shall stand cancelled. Issue arrest warrant against the applicant. 3 In view of dismissal of above revisions, the Criminal Applications No. 3385 of 2006, 3386 of 2006, 3387 of 2006 and 3388 of 2006 stand disposed of. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/cra374to377.10/61010