PANDURANG CAMOTIM SANCOALCAR Vs. SURESH PRABHAKAR PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a group of 23 Criminal Revision Applications alongwith 23 Criminal Writ Petitions. Out of these 23 Criminal Revision Applications, 10 have been filed by learned Advocate Mr. G. K. Tamba, 3 have been filed by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. V. B. Nadkarni, 8 have been filed by learned Advocate Mr. J. P. Mulgaokar and 2 have been filed by learned Advocate Mr. Kholkar. All the 23 Criminal revision Applications have been filed by the original complainant against the order of the Sessions Judge by which the order of issue of process issued against the accused Suresh Prabhakar Prabhu was quashed and set aside. All the Criminal Writ Petitions have been filed by the accused Suresh P. Prabhu challenging certain observations and finding of the Sessions Judge in the same order, eventhough ultimately the order of the Sessions Judge was in his favour.

(2.) I heard learned Advocate Mr. G. K. Tamba in respect of his 10 Criminal Revision Applications, Mr. Nadkarni, learned Senior Advocate, in respect of his 3 Criminal Revision Applications, learned Advocate Mr. J. P. Mulgaokar, in respect of his 8 Criminal Revision Applications and learned Advocate Mr. Kholkar, in respect of his 2 Criminal Revision Applications. So far as the Criminal Revision Applications of Mr. Tamba are concerned, reply to the same was given by Mr. Shirish Gupte, learned Senior Advocate and so far as the Criminal Revision Applications of Mr. Nadkarni and others are concerned, the reply was given by Mr. Amit Dessai, on behalf of the accused Suresh P. Prabhu. Similarly, in the Criminal Writ Petitions arguments were advanced by Mr. Amit Dessai, on behalf of the petitioners and all the advocates appearing for the complainants in their respective Criminal Revision Applications gave reply to those submissions.

(3.) ALL the 23 Criminal Revision Applications arise out of 23 complaint cases filed by the respective complainants before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). In all those complaints, the allegations of the complainants were that Western India Financial Services Ltd. (hereinafter for brevitys sake referred to as "the Company"), of whom accused Suresh P. Prabhu was the Managing Director, lured people to make investments in their company, with promise of high returns and they also gave cheques to the investors. However, when the cheques were deposited by the investors in their respective banks, all the cheques bounced. Notices were given by the complainants to the company and in some cases also the accused Suresh P. Prabhu, but since the payment did not follow those notices, the complainants were filed under the Act and also in some cases by invoking section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.