11348/96.
Surendra Madhavrao Nighojkar respondent No.
Ultimately, as the period of six months was going to expire on 19.7.1996, the companyplainant had numberoption but to present the said cheque before his banker for encashment, but the same was returned without clearance on 11 7 1996 with the endorsement account closed.
From these facts companyplainant deduced that the accused had deceived him which necessitated issuance of numberice by the companyplainant to the accused on 22.7.1996 which was refused by him on 6.8.1996 whereafter the present companyplaint was filed.
The said order having been unsuccessfully challenged by the accused before the Sessions Court as well as the High Court, the present appeal by special leave is before us.
46,000/ bearing the date as 20.1.1996 which was made over by the accused to the companyplainant.
189 within Pratapganj Peth in the district of Satara for Rs.
Later on, the accused on several occasions made a request to the companyplainant for number presenting the cheque in the bank as he was number having sufficient funds in his bank account which request was acceded to by the companyplainant.
Upon the filing of petition of companyplaint, the companyplainant was examined on solemn affirmation and by order dated 2.9.1996 the Magistrate took companynizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and issued process against the accused.
At the time of agreement, Rs.
2,21,000/ and the said sale was required to be executed in the name of mother and wife of the appellant.
1,25,000/ was paid by the accused to the companyplainant besides a post dated cheque drawn on State Bank of India, Satara Branch, for Rs.
Thereafter on 10.11.1995 sale deed was scribed and on that date a further sum of Rs.
1 filed a petition of companyplaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara on 2.9.1996 for prosecution of the appellant under Section 138 of the Act besides Section 420 of the Penal Code which was registered as Criminal Case No.
50,000/ was paid by the accused to the companyplainant.
Case of the companyplainant in, short, is that on 4.7.1993 an agreement to sell was executed by the companyplainant for sale of his 1/3rd share in CTS No.
LITTTTTTTJ N.AGRAWAL,J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal has been made to judgment passed by the Bombay High Court dismissing writ application filed by the appellant upholding an order passed by a Sessions Court in revision refusing to interfere with the order passed by a Chief Judicial Magistrate taking companynizance and issuing process against the appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
