Heard Mr. J. P. D'Souza, learned Counsel on behalf of the Applicant and Mr. S. S. Singbal, learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No.1. Other respondents have chosen to remain absent.

2. These revisions are directed against Order dated 7-3-2007 of the learned Sessions Judge by which the revisions filed before him by the accused were allowed and the Order dated 18-2-2005 of the learned Magistrate was set aside and as a result the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/accused ~ere discharged under section 420 read with 34, Indian Penal Code.

3. As the facts giving rise to these revisions are common, by consent, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

4. Some more facts are required to be stated to dispose of these revision applications. The applicant herein is a Company who filed a complaint against the accused under section 420 read with 34, Indian Penal Code. It appears that process issued initially was quashed by this Court by Order dated 30-1-2003 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 106/2002. Thereafter, the Complainant's Manager was examined afresh and so also other witnesses and the learned J.M.F.C. by Order dated 17-11-2003 was pleased to issue process against the accused under section 420 read with 34, Indian Penal Code.

5. After the accused appeared before the learned trial Court, the accused filed an application, on or about 9-7-2004, for recall of process issued against the accused and the said application came to be rejected by the learned J.M.F.C. by Order dated 26-11-2004. In rejecting the said application for recall of process the learned J.M.F.C. relied upon the case of Adalat Prasad vs. Rupal Zindal, 2004(4) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 274 = (2004) 22 ILD 425. Admittedly, till date, the Orders dated 17-11-2003 as well as 26-11-2004 have remained in force, the same having not been challenged by the accused either in revision or for that matter under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The impugned Order makes no reference to them.

6. Thereafter, the accused filed an application dated 3-2-2005, under section 245(2) of the Code (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) and it appears that in the said application certain documents were referred to particularly the complaints filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the Agreement dated 19-3-1997 and it was contended that in the said complaints there were no allegations of any corrupt practices on the part of the accused and failure to keep the promise under the said agreement did not come within the ambit of section 420, Indian Penal Code. It was further contended that the application was maintainable and the Court was called upon to look into the verification and the documents furnished by the complainant and discharge the accused.

7. The said application came to be rejected by the learned J.M.F.C., Pernem by his Order dated 18-2-2005. In the said Order, the learned J.M.F.C., interalia, observed that on 27-9-2004, the accused had moved an application to recall process issued under section 420 read with 34, Indian Penal Code and after hearing both the parties he had dismissed the said application. The learned J.M.F.C. also noted that the accused had not faced any inquiry and further observed that the accused had urged the very grounds which were urged by them at the time of filing of application for recall of process. Referring to sub-section (1) of section 245 of the Code, the learned J.M.F.C. noted that there was no evidence led in the inquiry before framing of charge and the documents produced on behalf of the accused were not sufficient to discharge the accused under subsection (2) of section 245 of the Code and that the accused would get an opportunity to argue their case before the framing of charge and as the case was fixed for inquiry before the framing of charge, the learned J.M.F.C. proceeded to dismiss the said application for discharge, filed under section 245(2) of the said Code.

8. The accused having preferred revi