( 1 ) THE original accused No. 2 of Criminal Case No. 1106/97 which is still pending on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad (for short `the learned Magistrate) has by filing this Criminal Revision Application under Sec. 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, challenged correctness, legality and propriety of judgment Exh. 14 dated 15th September, 1999, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (for short `the learned Judge of the Revisional Court) in Criminal Revision Application No. 148/99.

( 2 ) HERE in this Criminal Revision Application, the Revision-Petitioner is an original accused No. 2 while revision opponents No. 1 and 2 are complainant and accused No. 1 respectively. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to hereinafter as `complainant and `accused No. 1 and 2 respectively at appropriate places.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to this Criminal Revision Application in a nutshell are as follows:3. 1 on or about 5th April, 1997, the complainant lodged his private complaint against both the accused i. e. accused No. 1 and 2 for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short `the Act) read with Sec. 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. 2 as per that complaint lodged by complainant, the complainant is carrying on business of financing the needy persons on the basis of discounting of cheques. Both the accused are carrying on business at their business place situated in Kapadia Estate, Ratan Pole, Ahmedabad. Accused No. 1 i. e. Smt. Manjulaben Navinchandra Doshi, is an owner of business named "m. N. Shroff". Accused No. 2 is also carrying on and managing the affairs of the said business. 3. 3 on or about 2nd August, 1996, both the accused had gone to complainant. The complainant gave a cheque of Rs. One Lakh which was got encashed by both the accused. Thereafter, on 7th August, 1996, the complainant gave another cheque of Rs. 50,000/that was also got encashed by both the accused. Thereafter, on 2nd September, 1996, complainant gave a cheque of Rs. One lakh to both the accused. Similarly on 4th September, 1996, complainant gave a cheque of Rs. 50,000/to both the accused and that all cheques were encashed by both the accused. Thus, it is the case of the complainant that accused has received in all an amount of Rs. Three lakhs for their business purpose. Both the accused had promised the complainant that they would repay the amount of Rs. Three lakhs. 3. 3 thereafter, on or about 30th December, 1996, both the accused gave a cheque for Rs. Three lakhs to complainant. As stated in the complaint, accused No. 1 gave that cheque for Rs. Three lakhs by affixing a rubber stamp impression of "m. N. Shroff" and the accused No. 2 signed the endorsement of authority, below that cheque. That cheque was presented for realisation in the bank on 5th March, 1997. That cheque was bounced with a reason of "funds insufficient". Thereafter, complainant addressed a notice as required to be given under Sec. 138 of the Act to both the accused on 13th March, 1997, and both the accused were called upon to pay an amount of cheque together with interest within 15 days. Notice has been received by both the accused. Thereafter, on or about 25th March, 1997, accused No. 2 gave an evasive reply to the complainant. 3. 4 it is the case of complainant, as stated in Para 6 of his complaint, that accused No. 1 got the cheque prepared from her son Sanjay Navinchandra Joshi in presence of Kundanbhai, friend of complainant. Except the signature all the particulars were filled in, by son of accused No. 1 and thereafter accused No. 2 put his signature below that cheque. Thereafter, on 5. 4. 97, the complainant lodged his private complaint in the court of learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate took a cognizance of offence stated hereinabove against both the accused. That complaint came to be registered as Criminal Case