Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. No notice to the Respondent no.2

1. Heard learned counsel for the Accused-Applicant. The conviction recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Dadar, Mumbai by order dated 10.5.2011 was questioned before the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision Application No.118 of 2011. By an order dated 19.9.2011 the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Revision. Hence the writ.

2. The case propounded by the Complainant-respondent No.2 was, he has carried out activities of supply of CC TV cameras and lodged installations at hotel of the Accused-Applicant. It was on going process of 4/5 bills since 2007, 2008. There was another contract in January, 2009. Contract of January,2009 was extended up to June, 2009. After the work as per schedule in discharge of liability the Accused-Applicant has issued a cheque dated 7.5.2009 drawn on Allahabad bank in the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- (Three lacs fifty thousand only). The said cheque on presentation was dishonoured. Consequently, statutory notice was issued. The Accused-Applicant denied that the cheque was in discharge of the entire liability, as according to the Accused-Applicant still the work was left to be completed and certain deficiencies were noticed by him. After statutory notice complaint was filed. Process was issued to the accused. The accused claimed that he has issued a blank signed cheque in favour of the Complainant for security and without completing the contract misused the said cheque.

3. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner (accused) has raised following points:

(a) The learned Judge erroneously relied on bills produced by the complainant/respondent at the fag end of the matter.

(b) The verification of the affidavit in chief is defective.

(c) The reply notice dated 15.6.2009 did not meet rejoinder from the complainant/respondent.

d) There does not stand any legally enforceable liability and consequently no presumption in terms of section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

4. Before adverting to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the Applicant-Accused one fact is to be taken into consideration that as against conviction the revision was preferred by the accused applicant as stated above and after getting the Revision dismissed Writ Petition is filed before this court. Consequently, it is needless to indicate that scope of Writ Petition is very limited. Law does not permit to entertain the said Writ Petition to canvass factual details and disputes as there is specific bar under section 397 (3) of Cr.P.C. However learned counsel has elaborately dealt with evidence, read the reply notice and even the arguments tendered before the learned Judge particularly page 72 (para 6). learned counsel reiterate reading portions of the judgment the findings are contrary to the record.

5. Having gone through the judgment, I find no error of facts or law can be attributed to either the learned Metropolitan Magistrate or to the learned Revisional Court. There is no miscarriage of justice or failure of justice.

6. The documents which were purportedly produced below Exhibit 27 by the complainant are not considered by the learned Judge barring giving a reference, that such documents were indeed produced by complainant for court's satisfaction as asked by learned Judge.

7. On the point of verification learned counsel for the Applicant-Accused has pointed to chapter 7 of Criminal Manual dealing with affidavits and relied on the judgment reported in:

(1) AIR 1970 SUPREME COURT 652 (AAK NAMBIAR VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR) para 11 therein.

2) MR.EVAN NORONHA VS MR. /LLOYD JOSEPOH SIQUEIRA 2009 AllMR(Cri) 1058.

(3) 1989 (1) Bom. C.R.337 (RAJENDRA GANDHI VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA)

In the matter of AKK NAMBIAR, observations of Their Lordships in para 11 being of importance are produced hereinafter:

11. The reasons for verification of affidavits are to enable to court to find out which facts can be said to be proved on the affid