( 1 ) RULE. The learned counsel for the respondents waived service of Rule and, on joint request, the application was taken up for final disposal.

( 2 ) BY this revision application, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 10. 6. 2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Vadodara, made in Criminal Revision Application No. 109 of 2003, whereby the revision application of the respondent No. 2 was allowed and the order dated 17. 2. 2003 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in Muddamal Application No. 47 of 2003 was quashed and the matter was remanded for re-hearing. The order under revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge had, in substance, directed delivery of the muddamal cheque to the present petitioner for the purpose of presentation in bank. The muddamal articles about which the controversy has reached this Court are a number of cheques recovered pursuant to the complaint dated 4. 2. 2003 of the respondent No. 2 which was registered in DCB Police Station, Vadodara as No. I-8 of 2003.

( 3 ) THE peculiar facts of the case are such that, according to the petitioner, the accused in the aforesaid complaint, a sum of Rs. 9,80,000. 00 was advanced to the respondent No. 2, the complainant, in consideration whereof the respondent No. 2 had given 48 cheques of Rs. 20,000. 00 each and the respondent had also executed a notarised letter of undertaking dated 30. 8. 2002 assuring the petitioner that he may recover the amount due by encashing one of those cheques every month. This simple-looking monetary transaction of loan and recovery thereof by 48 post-dated cheques ran into complications when the petitioner started presenting such cheques and they started bouncing with the memos of the bank stating "returned unpaid for reason-funds insuffcient". It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner issued notice dated 1. 2. 2003 regarding return of the cheques and the respondent filed the aforesaid complaint dated 4. 2. 2003 alleging, in substance, that the initial debt of Rs. 10,000. 00 against the respondent was inflated into such a huge figure since the petitioner could not repay the instalments and usurious interest in time and that the cheques and the aforesaid undertaking were obtained under coercion and threats. It must be noted here that the undertaking evidencing delivery of 48 cheques and admittedly signed by the respondent appears to have been executed on 30. 8. 2002 whereas the aforesaid complaint was filed on 4. 2. 2003 stating the date and time of offence to be "since February, 2002 till today". It is stated by the respondent in his reply-affidavit that the petitioner was arrested on 4. 2. 2003 itself and he was released on bail on 15. 2. 2003 while, during the course of investigation, the muddamal cheques in question appeared to have been recovered by the investigating officer. Immediately on 17. 2. 2003, the petitioner filed Muddamal Application No. 47 of 2003 in which the order to return the cheques for presentation was made, after hearing the parties, on 16. 4. 2003 by the learned Judicial Magistrate. It is the order reversing that order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and remanding the matter for re-hearing which is under challenge in this revision application.

( 4 ) IT was submitted on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel M. Hasurkar that the petitioner was the holder in due course of the inchoate negotiable instruments and he was not only entitled to the custody of the muddamal but was required to present those cheques for realization. He submitted that the complaint lodged by the respondent was false, mala fide and obviously calculated to stave off the liability to repay and the prospect of facing one after the other complaint of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the NI Act ). He further submitted that in a way the cheques were perishable articles insofar as if