1. Heard Mr. Pratik B. Barot, learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the cheque in question of which dishonour is alleged has been issued by the husband of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner not being the drawer of the cheque, the complaint could not have been lodged against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has never signed the cheque and the cheque is actually drawn in the name of the husband of the present petitioner in a joint account maintained by them. It is submitted that it is only the drawer of the cheque who can be held liable, hence, the Court ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint against the present petitioner.
3. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, issue Notice returnable on 9th July, 2008.
4. Mr.
K.P. Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1 ? State of Gujarat.
Direct service is permitted qua respondent No.2.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J.) shekhar/-
Top