PER : R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith. The advocates for the respondents waive service.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner is seeking relief in the nature of direction to restrain the respondent from proceeding in any manner with the extradiction proceedings stated to have been initiated against the petitioner in connection with Criminal Case No. 10025 of 2003 pending on the file of J.M.F.C. (AC) Court Pune and consequently to review and recall of the order dated 17th April 2006 passed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 272 of 2006 and also to quash and revoke the order dated 22nd September 2005 passed by the Regional Passport Office, Mumbai impounding the passport issued in the name of the petitioner.

3. The respondent No.1 had filed Cri. Writ Petition No. 272 of 2006 seeking the reliefs in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or direction to the respondents in the said petition which included the Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Police Commissioner Pune, State of Maharashtra, the Secretary, the Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, and Union of India for completing all the formalities under section 19 and other sections of Extradition Act, 1962 and to make provision for extraditing the accused from U.S.A. to India as early as possible and within a time bound programme to ensure the presence of the petitioner who has been arrayed as accused in Cri. Case No. 10025 of 2003. This Court by order dated 17th April 2006 disposed of the said petition granting the said relief.

4. It is contention of the petitioner that this Court was made to believe that the offence, for which the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted in Cri. Case No.10025 of 2003 before the J.M.F.C. Pune, is an extraditable offence within the meaning of the said expression under "Extradition Treaty" between the Government of Republic of India and the Government of the United States of America, when in fact the said offence is not an extraditable offence within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the said Extradition Treaty. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is sought to be prosecuted in the said Cri. Case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Section 138 reads thus- "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

. Provided that nothing contained in this Section shall apply unless-

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen da