1. Heard.

2. The present petition is against the order dated 28th June 2017 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Balado Bazar in Criminal Revision No.H-23/2017 (Simeya Hariramani and another Vs. Bank of Baroda) whereby the charge framed by the CJM, Baloda Bazar vide order dated 10.02.2017 passed in Criminal Case no.54/2016 has been maintained. 3. As per the case of petitioner, on 07.02.2015 a complaint was filed by the Bank of Baroda through its Branch Manager of Baloda Bazar u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 07.12.2015 when 3 cheques issued by the petitioner were dishonoured. The details of cheques are as under :-

S. No	Bank & A/c No.	Drawer	Drawee	Cheq No. & date	Amount Rs.	Date of dishonour
1.	HDFC Bank 01528630000254	Global Packaging	Global Packaging	000502, dt.17.10.15	25 Lakhs	17.10.15
2.	HDFC Bank0152863000254	Global Packaging	Global Packaging	00503 dt.27.10.15	25 Lakhs	27.10.15
3.	HDFC Bank 0152863000254	Global Packaging	Global Packaging	000504 dt.31.10.15	25 lakhs	31.10.15

4. After the complaint was filed, the same was subject of challenge about the maintainability. Initially the objection was made before the JMFC by the petitioners/accused that the drawer and drawee of the cheques being one and the same, the Branch Manager of the Bank cannot maintain the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. The same having been over ruled and the charges were framed on 10.02.2017, the same was subject of challenge before the revisional Court. The revisional Court by impugned order dismissed the revision holding that complaint filed u/s 138 of N.I. Act is tenable and the charges were rightly framed. Hence this petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, certain cheques were issued by the Company namely Global Packaging which were of the HDFC Bank and the drawer and drawee were the same i.e., Global Packaging. He submits that in a case like nature when the drawer and drawee are one and the same and when the cheques are presented for encashment, if they are dishonoured, the provisions of section 138 of the NI Act cannot be pressed into motion by third party. He submits that the Branch Manager without any right or authority has filed the complaint u/s 138 of the N.I. Act, therefore, the same is unsustainable under the law and the entire proceedings before the court below is liable to be quashed. He further submits that the cognizance could not have been taken only on the basis of photocopy of the cheques, therefore, the said cognizance is liable to be quashed and no statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the arguments of the petitioners and submits that the said cheques were issued for discharge of liability as against the loan which was availed by the Company and the drawer was Global Packaging and the drawee was also Global Packaging but the Bank inter-meddled as 'holder in due course'. It is stated that when the cheques were presented for encashment for discharge of a debt owed to the complainant Bank they were dishonoured, therefore, the bank has all the right or authority to maintain the complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act. He further submits that the affidavit of the complainant was enclosed along-with complaint in terms of section 145 of NI Act, therefore, the cognizance cannot be said to be bad in law. He further submits that all the objections can be gone into during the course of evidence and if the original cheques are not produced then automatically the complaint may fail. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner is premature.

7. Perused the document. The question which falls for consideration in this case is whether the Bank was entitled for encashment of Cheque since the drawer and drawee were one and the same. A perusal of t