Z.K. Saiyed, J.

1. By way of present revision application filed by the applicant-original accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. the applicant has challenged the order dated 10.06.2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 1216 of 2012 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi, whereby the applicant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment. The applicant was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 17,60,000/- i.e. double the amount of cheque with interest at the rate of Rs. 9% from the date of the complainant. The said order was assailed by the applicant before the learned appellate Court. The learned (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad vide order dated 02.09.2015 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2014, confirmed the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pardi.

2. The facts of the Prosecution in nutshell is such that the complainant is doing a business in the name and style of Shreeram Fabrication at Pardi and the applicant-accused is a proprietor of Umiya Steel Fabricator and doing the business at Borivali (West), Mumbai. The applicant is nephew of the complainant. The applicant gave work order in the project of Boisar, Maharashtra "Section Rolling Mill (Viraj) to the complainant. The said work order was completed by the complainant within stipulated period of time i.e. April 2012 as per the terms and conditions, costing Rs. 12,81,337/-. For the said amount, the accused gave two cheques of ICICI Borivali Branch bearing No. 759759 of Rs. 5 lacs and bearing No. 759794 of Rs. 3,80,000/-. On depositing the said cheques in the account of the complainant, the said the cheques returned without clearing on 30.07.2012 with an endorsement showing "Payment stopped by drawer". The said fact was informed by the complainant to the applicant, however, the applicant did not give any reply. Therefore, the complainant issued notice on 23.08.2012 inspite of which, the applicant-accused did not make the payment, the present complaint has been filed.

3. Thereafter, summons was issued. Plead was recorded at Exh. 16 and the complainant has produced documentary evidences and examined the Kanaiyalal Maganlal Chauhan at Exh. 41

4. After filing closing purshish, statement of the applicant-accused was recorded further statement of the appellant-accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein the appellant has denied the case of the prosecution and has pleaded his innocence. The appellant have submitted that a false case is filed against him.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and orders, applicant-original accused has preferred this revision application.

6. Heard Mr. Utpal M. Panchal, learned advocate for the applicant-accused, Mr. Adil Mirza, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 and Mr. N.J. Shah, learned APP for the respondent-State.

7. Mr. Utpal M. Panchal, learned advocate contended that the judgments and order passed by Courts below are illegal, invalid and improper. He has also contended that the Courts below have not considered the case of the defence and material evidence produced on record and has passed absolutely wrong order. He contended that the complainant is shown as proprietor of Shreeram Fabricator. Mr. Panchal, relied upon the decision in the case of Milind Shripad Chandukar Vs. Kalim M. Khan, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 1670, wherein it is observed that the complainant did not produce any evidence to show that he was the proprietor of the firm and complainant not being the payee, the complainant at his instance was not maintainable. In present case, it is admitted by the complainant in his cross-examination that he is a proprietor of Shreeram Fabricator, however, he did not produce any document in support of the said factum before the Court and he has not signed the complaint as proprietor. Hence, the