( 1 ) RULE is issued in Special Criminal application No. 1261 of 2005. Ms. Archana c. Raval, learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. l. Mr. Manish R. Raval, learned counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 2. In Special Criminal application Nos. 1716 to 1718 of 2005, rule was issued on 13-2-2007 and the respondents are duly served.

( 2 ) THE abovenumbered petitions have been placed before this Court pursuant to the order dated 27-12-2006 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in special Criminal Application No. 1261 of 2007, which reads as under:

( 3 ) MS. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner, in support of her case, has placed reliance on following decisions, (A) Satishkumar Jayantilal Shah v. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 1999 DCR 329 (B) K. P. Devassy v. The Official liquidator reported in 1999 DCR 339

( 4 ) HAVING gone through the aforesaid decisions, it appears that the view taken by the respective learned Single Judges are contrary. I am, therefore of the opinion that the matter requires to be placed before the division Bench.

( 5 ) OFFICE, therefore, is directed to place the matter before the Division Bench, taking up such matters, after taking necessary approval from Hon ble the Chief justice. 3. At the outset it is relevant to notice that no specific question of law has been referred to the Division Bench for clarification and decision. It can, therefore, be safely understood that the entire matter and all the issues raised therein are encompassed in the reference to the division Bench for its determination and adjudication. We, therefore, propose to decide all the issues raised before us by the learned counsel for the parties.

( 6 ) IN order to effectively resolve the issues raised before this Court, it is necessary to notice the facts of Special criminal Application No. 1261 of 2005. The respondent No. 2 therein has filed two private complaints under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the n.. Act" for short) in the court of learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, which are registered as Criminal Case No. 2215 of 1996 and Criminal Case No. 2905 of 1996 respectively. The case of the complainant in criminal Case No. 2215 of 1996 is that a loan of Rs. 50,000/- was advanced to the petitioner on 25. 12. 1995 for which the petitioner had issued a cheque of rs. 25,000/- dated 30-1-1996 and another cheque of Rs. 25,000/- dated 20-2-1996 drawn on Rander Road Branch of the Bank of Baroda, Surat. According to the complainant, the cheque dated 30-1-1996 was tendered for encashment on 26-7-1996. However, it bounced on 31-7-1996 with an endorsement that "exceeds Arrangement". The second cheque dated 20-2-1996 was tendered for encashment on 7-8-1996, which also bounced on 9-8-1996 with the same endorsement made by the Bank. Therefore, two separate notices dated 12-8- 1996 were issued by R. P. A. D. and U. P. C. on the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not reply to the notices or tender the amount due, the abovereferred to complaint is filed under Section 138 of the N.. Act.

( 7 ) AS far as Criminal Case No. 2905 of 1996 is concerned, it is the case of the complainant that a loan of Rs. 65,000/- was advanced by him to the petitioner on 7-12- 1995. The petitioner issued cheque dated 10-3-1996 for an amount of Rs. 35,000/- which was tendered for encashment on 6-9- 1996. However, the same bounced on 7-9- 1996 with the endorsement of the Bank "payment stopped by drawer". The second cheque dated 30-3-1996 for an amount of rs. 30,000/- was presented in the Bank for encashment on 6-9-1996, but also bounced on 7-9-1996 with the same endorsement by the Bank. The complainant, therefore, issued notice on 14-9-1996. The petitioner replied to the notice on 30-9-1996 but since no payment of the amount due was made, the abovereferred to complaint is filed under Section 138 of the N.. Act. On presentation of the complaints, the learned magistrate recorded verif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document