KIRAN LAXMINARAYAN MAHESHWARI Vs. WILSON MATTHWS D SOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard.

(2.) The Petitioner is the original complainant. He is a medical practitioner at Murbad, in District Thane. According to him, the accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before this Court, were responsible for the day-to-day conduct of business of the accused No. 1 -Shree Shyam Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. situated at Murbad. At the request of the accused persons, the complainant was providing medical services to the workers of the complainant. To clear the medical bills of the workers, the accused issued a cheque drawn on the account of the complainant maintained with Union Bank of India, Thane (W) Branch for payment of Rs. 43,000/-to the complainant. The said cheque was deposited by the complainant with Bank of Maharashtra, Branch Murbad for presentation to Union Bank of India, Thane Branch for encashment. The cheque was returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds. In spite of service of statutory notice making demand of the cheque amount, payment was not made within the stipulated period. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the company as well as the accused Nos. 2 and 3. The Judicial Magistrate issued process against all the three accused persons. That order was challenged by the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Criminal Revision No. 89 of 2000 on several grounds. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, allowed the Revision Application and set

(3.) On perusal of the order passed by the Sessions Court, it is clear that the Sessions Court rejected several grounds taken by the accused persons for challenging issuance of process. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was impressed with the contention that the cheque was payable at Union Bank of India, Thane Branch and, therefore, the JMFC, Murbad, had no jurisdiction to issue process. For this purpose, the Addl. Sessions Judge relied upon Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 CrLJ 115. I am afraid, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not carefully read nor he properly understood the judgment in Ahuja Dongre (supra).