1. Rule, Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. At the outset, it must be clarified that I was presiding over a Single Bench assigned criminal revision applications and at that time, this criminal revision application was placed before me. Prior thereto, it was heard by another learned single judge Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.M. Thipsay but he could not pronounce final orders. I had heard this matter in May 2013 but because of the ensuing May Vacation, I immediately could not deliver a judgment and placed it for passing of orders / Judgment in Court on 10.6.2013. Prior thereto, the assignment of work changed and in my case, I was no longer assigned criminal revision applications. That is how the matter stood released automatically and in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, while assigning judicial work.

3. However, the parties mentioned before me that this case was extensively heard by me and, therefore, the final orders be passed by me. They obtained the requisite directions from the Hon'ble the chief Justice. That is how the matter came to be reassigned to me. It was in my Chambers on 10.7.2013 on account of my current assignment, I indicated to the parties that it would take some time to deliver a judgment. The parties stated that they did not have anything to add other than what was already argued and noted by me. In such circumstances, the order was reserved. The delay that has occurred in delivering this judgment is because of the Division Bench Criminal work assignment of which I am part of and which has continued from 27.6.2013 till date. This explains the delay in pronouncing this Judgment.

4. By this Criminal Revision Application, the application challenges the judgment and order dated 12.7.2011 of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 62nd Court, Dadar, Mumbai in C.C. No.2960/SS/2011. He also challenges the order dated 18.5.2012 of the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay at Sewree dismissing Criminal Appeal No.130 of 2011.

5. The proceedings are under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The case of Respondent No.2 – complainant M/s.Reliance Capital Limited is that it is a limited company registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Navi Mumbai, District Thane.

6. It is also a non banking finance company, inter alia, dealing with providing various financial facilities to the customers at large through its Head Consumer Finance Division and Corporate office situated at Wadala, Mumbai. The applicant accused is the customer of Respondent No.2 complainant. He availed of finance / loan facility being loan against securities from the Complainant company which was sanctioned pursuant to loan application No.LAS 3463 and after the parties executed various documents and papers in respect thereof. A sanction letter was issued on 29.9.2010 sanctioning a loan facility of Rs.20 crores to be disbursed into tranches against pledge of shares of some companies and which were to be deposited by the applicant accused in favour of the respondent No.2 – Complainant.

7. The applicant accused executed with the Complainant a loan cum agreement to create pledge of securities dated 29.9.2010 for the loan facilities of Rs.20 crores to be disbursed as above. He also executed a power of attorney, demand promissory note and letter of continuity for demand promissory note, both dated 29.9.2010. The Complainant narrates as to how the shares were then deposited. However, it is alleged that due to sharp drop / decline in the value of securities/shares pledged by the accused, which were listed on the stock exchange, the loan account was overdrawn and thus, the complainant by its letters dated 2.12.2010 and 6.12.2010 alongwith a personal telephonic contact and other methods called upon the applicant accused to regularise the loan account but he failed to do so. There were repeated intimations and