Partha Sakha Datta, J.—C.R.R. 299 of 2007 and C.R.R. 300 of 2007 are being disposed off by this common judgment and order because of the facts that the parties are the same, the facts exactly identical and the questions of law as have been urged in the two revisional applications are also common.

2. The petitioner who was known to the opposite party herein since long before the transaction allegedly obtained loan of Rs. 5,00,000 from the opposite party and towards repayment of the loan he issued a cheque being No.561248 dated 20.8.1997 for Rs. 1,50,000 (one lac fifty thousand) drawn on ANZ Grindlays Bank, Ganesh Chandra Avenue Branch which was deposited with the bank but was dishonoured on the ground that account was closed by the petitioner as far back as 21.7.1995. Then followed statutory notice under Section 138 (b) of N.I. Act, on 22.8.1997 but it was returned back with the postman’s remark “left the address”. Then the case was instituted and trial followed. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Howrah by his judgment and order dated 29.3.2004, convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. It was directed in the order that upon realization of .the fine amount the same would be paid to the complainant. This judgment and order of the learned Magistrate has been confirmed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court. Howrah.

3. Against this appellate judgment and order confirming the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate in Case No. 854-C of 1997 this revisional application being CRR No.299 of 2007 has been filed.

4. In C.R.R. 300 of 1997 the facts were that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 3,50,000 (three lakhs fifty thousand) towards discharge of legal liability in favour of the complainant opposite party on 10.8.1998. The cheque, was presented before the Bank of America, India Exchange, Calcutta and it was dishonoured with the remark ‘account closed’ as per the return memo of the bank dated 26.8.1998. Statutory notice followed on 4.9. 98. The statutory notice in the form of a letter was returned unserved on 24.9.98 with the remark of the postman “not claimed”. Then the case was instituted. The same learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Howrah by his judgment and Order dated 31.1.2005 convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,50,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and it was directed that if the fine amount was realized the entire amount would be paid to the complainant. This judgment and order passed in case No. 915-C of 1998 was confirmed by the same learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah by his judgment and order dated 20.12.2006 in Criminal Appeal No.1 of 2005. This appellate judgment is the subject matter of revision in CRR 300 of 2007.

Before the learned Trial Court both the parties adduced evidence and both were cross-examined by each other.

5. The grounds of revision in both the cases are almost one and the same. However, in CRR 299 of 2007 it has been contended that the requirements of Section 138 of the N.I. Act were not met with, that lawyer’s notice cannot be, a substitute of the requirement of notice by the payee of the cheque, and that the notice was bad in law as it was never received by the complainant.

6. In CRR No.300 of 1997 the grounds of revision are that the requirements of law were not complied with, that the complainant had misused some blank cheques given to him by the petitioner on the basis of a power of attorney and a fabricated false cheque was presented to the bank, that the notice was bad in law and that the judgment and order of the Appellate Court in both the cases are required to be set aside.

7. I have gone through the evidence of the witnesse