Heard.

2. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are absent in spite of service and in spite of indication having been given to them that the matter would be decided finally at the admission stage itself.

3. In the circumstances, keeping in mind the order dated 14th August, 2013 passed by this Court, leave granted.

4. The Application is treated as a Memo of Appeal.

5. The Appeal is admitted.

6. The applicant hereinafter be referred to as 'the complainant' for the sake of convenience and clarity.

7. In accordance with the said order dated 14th October, 2013, the Appeal is taken up for final hearing forthwith.

8. The applicant - a partnership firm - had filed a complaint against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, alleging commission of an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, by them. The respondent No. 2 is a proprietary concern of which the respondent No. 3 is the proprietor. The learned Magistrate had issued process against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and the respondent No. 3 had entered her appearance for herself, and also for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in obedience to the summons issued by the learned Magistrate. It appears that, thereafter, t