ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

3. By these applications preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner/accused facing prosecution for commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in Summary Case No.4475/2006, 4514/2006 and 3927/2006 pending in Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola instituted upon the complaint filed by respective respondent no.1 in each of these respective petition, had thrown a challenge to order dated 16.10.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola rejecting each of applications in revision preferred by said petitioner against common order dated 24.7.2008 passed by trial Court for the said summary criminal cases fixing each of said case for consideration on merits and for judgment. Needless to add that the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside order dated 16.10.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and have further prayed for directing trial Court to proceed with the trial in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure.

4. The facts bereft of unnecessary details and restricted to limited controversy involved as disclosed from applications/the orders impugned are as under:

During the pendency of said cases at a particular stage after recording the plea of the applicant i.e.:-

(i) in SCC No. 4457 of 2006 after respondent No.1/complainant has led evidence on affidavit 19.7.2006 and petitioner had failed to cross-examine him after seeking number of adjournments and trial Court had passed order of no cross-examination on 23.2.2008 and was adjourned for recording statement of petitioner on 22.4.2008;

(ii) in SCC No. 4514/2006 after respondent/complainant has led evidence on affidavit on 23.2.2007 and petitioner had failed to cross-examine him after seeking number of adjournments and trial Court had passed order of no cross-examination on 22.2.2008 and was adjourned for recording statement of petitioner; and

(iii) in SCC No. 3927/2006 after respondent/complainant has led his evidence on affidavit and the petitioner had cross-examined him and petitioner was examined by trial Court under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and petitioner/accused in spite of taking adjournment had failed to lead evidence in his defence and the case was closed on 29.3.2008 and the same was adjourned from time to time for final argument;

petitioner/accused has respectively filed a pursis respectively at Exh.53, 48 and 44 inter alia stating all matters being amicably settled/compounded in between himself and complainant and petitioner/accused has agreed for paying the cheque amount to complainant and he would be paying the same before next date fixed in the matter.

5. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has urged that after filing of said pursis, trial court observing that same was not bearing the signature of learned Advocate for petitioner/accused had ordered complainant to look in the matter. It is also urged that learned counsel for complainant had noted matters stated in said pursis. It is further urged that thereafter the petitioner/accused having not paid the amount as stated in said pursis and pursis were filed on behalf of respondent no.1/complainant amongst other stating that in view of petitioner/accused being ready to pay the cheque amount in respective case and having filed pursis for granting him time; petitioner/accused has no right to conduct/contest matter on merits and hence all the said matters should be posted for further proceeding or for making the justice and accordingly the common order dated 24.7.2008 was passed by the trial Court upon complaint Exh.1 in each of the said cases.

6. Now reverting to common order impugned in the revision application the same reveals that after considering all the said facts and particularly after taking into consideration the pursis given by the accused, the trial