B. U. Wahane, J. - These three criminal application are directed against the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati, taking cognizance and registering the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and under Section 420 of I.P.C. and consequently the issuance of the summons. In Criminal Application No. 433/91 the order dt. 4.1.1991, in Criminal Application No. 448/91 the order dt. 16.12.1989, and in Criminal Application No. 569/91 the order dated 7.12.1989 are under challenge.

2. In Criminal Application No. 433/91, the respondent No. 1 Ashish Enterprises-a registered partnership firm by its partner, Bansilal Baijanath Jaju, filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, under the Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988, and under Section 420 of I.P.C. The complainant and the applicant/accused are the residents of Amravati having their business. The applicant/accused is running a shop for years together of purchasing and selling various seeds within the jurisdiction of City Kotwali, P.S. Amravati. The complainant i.e. the respondent No. 1- partner and the applicant/accused-are acquainted to each other. The complainant advanced a hand loan of Rs. 25,000/- to the applicant on 6.6.1989 and in lieu thereof the applicant executed a receipt in favour of the complainant on the very day. It was agreed that the loan amount would be refunded within, assort period. Reposing confidence in the words of the applicant/accused, the hand loan was advanced.

The applicant/accused issued post-dated cheques from time to time. But, on all the occasions they were dishonoured. The first postdated account payee cheque No. 0170611 of Rs. 25,000/- of the Bank of Maharashtra, was presented in the Bank on 23.6.1989 but it was not encashed and thus it was dishonoured with an endorsement that the applicant/accused had no requisite amount to his credit in his bank A/C. The complainant, therefore, through his counsel Shri Pandharpurkar, served a registered notice on the accused, dated 10.8.1989, demanding the amount. The applicant/accused approached the complainant and expressed his helplessness to return the said amount immediately as agreed.

The accused issued a second post-dated cheque No. ONH 365412 dated 20.10.1989 of the Bank of Pun jab National Bank; Branch Amravati. On presentation, it could not be encashed and was dishonoured with an endorsement "Refer to Drawer". This fact was also intimated to the accused. On the third occasion, a post-dated cheque No. 0170621 dated 24.10.1989 for Rs. 27,000/- of the Bank of Maharashtra Branch, Amravati, was handed over to the complainant but the same cheque could not be encashed and it was dishonoured on 2.11.1989 with an endorsement that the "Suit filed against the said No. The complainant, therefore, was constrained to send a registered notice dated 9.11.1989 which was duly served on the accused on 19.11.1989. The complainant demanded the principal amount and interest thereon within is days from the receipt of the notice. The accused did not comply the notice but sent a reply by registered post on 17.11.1989 making false allegations.

3. The complainant, therefore, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 420 of I.P.C.

4. The criminal application No. 569/91 arose out of the Registration of Criminal Case No. 68/91 which was registered on the complaint of Shri Govind Bansilal Jaju. He too filed a complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable, Instruments Act under the Banking Public Financial Institutions Act and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 and. Section 420 of I.P.C. Initially the case was registered as a summary case No. 1567/89 but subsequently it was ordered to be tried as a warrant ease and, therefore, it was registered as a criminal case No. 68/89.

The complainant took the accused as a trust worthy person and a rep