( 1 ) THE petitioner abovenamed has filed the present Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in order to challenge the judgment and order dated 19-6-1995 recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Criminal Appeal no. 16/1994 confirming the judgment and conviction order dated 6-6-1994 recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Criminal Case no. 47/1992 under which the learned Magistrate had convicted the present petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and sentenced him to suffer S. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000. 00, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S. I. for three months and also to pay compensation of Rs. 22,000. 00.

( 2 ) THE first respondent had filed the aforesaid criminal case before the aforesaid Court stating that the petitioner was required to pay an amount of Rs. 23,000/to the first respondent and with a view to satisfy the said due, the petitioner had issued a cheque of Rs. 22,000/dated 5-12-1991. Further details are as follows: 1. 5-12-1991 Date of cheque of Rs. 22,000. 00. 2. 6-12-1991 Presentment and dishonour of cheque. 3. 12-12-1991 Second presentment. 4. 17-12-1991 Second dishonour of cheque. 5. 18-12-1991 Statutory notice. 6. 10-1-1991 Complaint

( 3 ) THE first respondent contended before the trial Court that the cheque was dishonoured twice and yet the petitioner did not pay the said amount to the first respondent despite notice as aforesaid, and therefore, the said complaint was filed.

( 4 ) AFTER going through the prescribed procedure, the learned Magistrate found the petitioner guilty for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the said Act and inflicted the aforesaid punishment. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction order of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal no. 16/1994 unsuccessfully. Hence, this Revision.

( 5 ) IN the present Revision Application, it has been mainly contended that the Sessions Court had dismissed the appeal on merit in absence of the petitioner and his Advocate, and therefore, the said dismissal is ex facie illegal, and therefore, the matter is atleast required to be remanded to the Sessions Court for fresh hearing. It is also contended that the notice and the complaint were not within the limitation prescribed, and therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained. That therefore, the present Revision be allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner be set aside.

( 6 ) AFTER the Revision was filed, Rule was issued and it was duly served upon the respondents. The first respondent is being represented by Mr. P. K. Jani and the second respondent is being represented by Mr. S. J. Dave,addl. P. P.

( 7 ) I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have perused the papers. As stated above, it was the case of the first respondent that an amount of Rs. 23,000. 00 was due to the first respondent by the petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner had issued a cheque of Rs. 22,0000. 00 on 5-12-1991 and it was dishonoured twice on 6-12-1991 and 17-12-1991, and therefore, the statutory notice was issued on 18-12-1991, and since it was not complied with, complaint was filed on 10-1-1992. These facts are not very much in dispute.

( 8 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner has contended that before the Sessions Court, the petitioner could not remain present and his Advocate was also not present, and therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had disposed of the said appeal in absence of the petitioner and his Advocate.

( 9 ) PARAGRAPH 5 of the judgment at page 9 clearly shows that the petitioner and his Advocate both were absent though opportunity were given to them to appear and argue the matter, and therefore, the learned Judge went through the record and proceedings of the tria