1. Heard Mr. Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Nandkishore Dubey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard forthwith.

3. The petitioners, by this Revision Application, have challenged the judgment and order dated 21/12/2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, South Goa at Margao ('Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No. 68/2012. By the said judgment dated 21/12/2013 passed in the said Criminal Appeal, the judgment and order dated 12/06/2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vasco-da-Gama ('Trial Magistrate') in Criminal case No. 80/OA/NIA/2010/A was maintained.

4. The petitioners were the accused nos. 1 and 2 respectively, whereas respondent no.1 was the complainant in the said Criminal Case. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal Case No. 80/OA/NIA/2010/A.

5. Facts giving rise to the Revision Application, in short, are as follows:

The complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('N. I. Act' for short). The complainant carries on business of purchasing, handling, transportation and shipment of iron ore and other minerals. It was alleged that the accused no. 2 is the proprietor of the accused no.1 and had approached the complainant for supply of iron ore fines having grade FE 58/58% and a contract was executed on 01/02/2009 for supply of 40,000 MT at the rate as per the terms as stipulated in the said contract. The complainant alleged that upon signing the said contract, the complainant paid an advance of Rs. 60,00,000/- to the accused. According to the complainant, the material supplied by the accused was not of the grade as specified in the contract and hence, the same was rejected by the complainant vide letter dated 23/07/2009 and the accused was requested to refund the entire amount that was advanced. The complainant further alleged that in the discharge of liability of returning the advance, the accused issued, in favour of the complainant, four cheques bearing No.138937, dated 25/06/2010; 138938 dated 10/07/2010; 138939 dated 25/07/2010; and 138940 dated 10/08/2010 for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- each, all drawn on the Corporation Bank, Bicholim Branch. The said cheques, when presented to the banker of the complainant, were returned unpaid for 'insufficient funds'. On 21/08/2010, a statutory notice of demand was issued by the complainant demanding the amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- which was duly received by the accused on 27/08/2010, but the accused failed to comply with the requirement of the said notice. Hence, the complaint was filed which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 80/OA/NIA/2010/A.

6. The accused pleaded not guilty to the substance of accusation explained to them and the complainant examined himself as PW1, Advocate Vidya Shet as PW2, one Shri Jatin Uniyal as PW3 and Shri Sanjay Ghasari as PW4.

7. The statement of the accused came to be recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused no. 2 admitted that he is a proprietor of accused no.1. It was the case of the accused persons that the said cheques were not issued by accused no. 2 to the complainant and that the complainant took the cheques from the son of accused no. 2, namely, Girish Dhawaskar by threatening him. It was further alleged by the accused no. 2 that he had filed a complaint against the complainant on 15/07/2009 at Bicholim Police Station alleging that the complainant sent one Pritesh and four unknown persons to the Cashew Factory of the accused at Bicholim on 13/07/2009 in a vehicle bearing No. GA-O4/C-3094 and again, on 15/07/2009 in a vehicle bearing Registration No. GA-01/C-8027 and threatened to kidnap and kill the accused no. 2 and his son Girish Dhawaskar. The accused did not examine any witness.

8. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Trial Magistra