Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. To state in brief, the petitioner before this Court is the original complainant. Respondent no.2, the proprietor of M/s. Impact Impex, was indebted to the complainant and to discharge the liability, two cheques of Rs. 4,30,000/- each were issued by the proprietor/authorised signatory for M/s. Impact Impex in favour of the petitioner against Union Bank of India. The cheques were presented, but they were dishonoured on 18.9.2007. On 21.9.2007, the petitioner issued a notice to the proprietor of Impact Impex demanding the money in view of the cheques being dishonoured. Inspite of service, payment was not made. on 22.10.2007, the petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No.1 showing him to be proprietor of Impact Impex on 22.10.2007. Process was issued against respondent no.1. Trial proceeded. On 31.3.2008, the petitioner was cross-examined on behalf of the accused/respondent No.1 wherein it was suggested that the accused/respondent No.1 was not the proprietor of M/s. Impact Impex nor he was signatory of the cheques. After prosecution evidence was over, statement of respondent No.1 was reco