J.H. Bhatia, J.—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. To state in brief, the petitioner before this Court is the original complainant. Respondent No.2, the proprietor of M/s. Impact Impex, was indebted to the complainant and to discharge the liability, two cheques of Rs.4,30,000/- each were issued by the proprietor/authorized signatory for M/s. Impact Impex in favour of the petitioner against Union Bank of India. The cheques were Presented, but they were dishonoured on 18.09 .2007. On 21.09.2007, the petitioner issued notice to the proprietor of Impact Impex demanding the money in view of the cheques being dishonoured. Inspite of service, payment was not made on 22.10.2007, the petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No.1 showing him to be proprietor of Impact Impex on 22.10.2007. Process was issued against respondent No.1. Trial proceeded. On 31.03.2008, the petitioner was cross- examined on behalf of the accused/respondent No.1 wherein it was suggested that the accused/respondent No.1 was not the proprietor of M/s. Impact Impex nor he was signatory of the cheques. After prosecution evidence was over, statement of respondent