V .C. Daga, J.—Since these revision applications involve common parties identical facts; similar defences and argued by common Advocate, hence they are taken up together. The parties for the sake of clarity are referred to in their original capacity.

2. These revisions are directed against two separate judgments and orders dated 27.3.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon, Nashik in Criminal Appeal Nos. 25 of 2006 and 16 of 1006 confirming conviction of the applicant/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 (“N.I. Act” for short) recorded vide two separate judgments and orders both dated 28.6.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon in Criminal Case No.173 of 2000 and Criminal Case No. 174 of 2000 with slight modification so far as the imposition of fine of Rs. 5,000 is concerned.

The Factual Matrix

3. The factual matrix reveals that the respondent No. 1 original complainant is running proprietary concerns under the name and style of M/s. Parekh Enterprises and M/s. M. D. Process dealing in the business of processing and selling grey cloth.

4. The respondent No.1 (complainant) has alleged that the accused used to