Judgment :

Javed Iqbal Wani, J.

1. In the instant petition, under challenge is the order dated 15.3.2019 (for short ‘impugned order’) passed by the court of 4th Additional District Judge, Srinagar, (for short ‘revisional court’) in a revision filed by the respondent herein while throwing challenge to the order dated 25.6.2018 passed by the CJM Srinagar (for short ‘trial court’) in case titled as Khalid Bin Gani and another versus Mohd. Ashraf Dar.

2. The facts those stem out from the perusal of the petition reveal that a criminal complaint under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act (for short the Act) for dishonor of three cheques issued by the respondent herein in favour of the petitioners, had been instituted after the complainants/petitioners herein had sent a demand notice through registered post inasmuch as after the expiry of stipulated period the accused/respondent herein had failed to pay the amount covered under cheques in question.

3. A perusal of the petition further reveals that the accused/respondent herein appeared before the trial court after being summoned and filed bail bonds thereof. The statement of the accused/respondent herein has been recorded under section 242 CrPC wherein the accused is stated to have admitted the issuance of cheques but disputed to have received the demand notice. The accused/respondent herein, however, admitted to have received the notice of the complaint of the trial court and despite that did not pay the cheque amounts after the receipt of the said notice of the trial court.

4. A further perusal of the petition reveals that the accused/respondent herein came to be convicted vide judgment dated 30.11.2015 for commission of offence under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act by the trial court on account of his admission recorded in his statement under section 242 Cr.P.C. Further perusal of the petition would also reveal that an appeal had been preferred by the accused/respondent against the judgment dated 30.11.2015 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, which judgment had been set aside on 30.5.2016 remitting the case back to the trial court for proceedings in the matter in accordance with law.

5. It is further revealed from the perusal of the petition that the complainants/petitioners herein examined three witnesses in the complaint and concluded their evidence on 27.1.2017 whereupon the accused/respondent herein came to be directed to lead the evidence. The right of the accused/respondent herein to adduce evidence had been closed vide order dated 6.5.2017, which order had been questioned by the accused/respondent herein in a revision before the court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, which court vide order dated 30.11.2017 while disposing of the revision petition directed the trial court to afford two more opportunities to the accused/respondent herein for adducing evidence.

6. A perusal of the petition further reveals that the accused/respondent herein failed to avail the opportunities aforesaid, as were granted by the revisional court vide order dated 30.11.2017 and did neither appear before the trial court nor led any evidence thereof resulting into forfeiture of his surety bonds. Further perusal of the petition reveals that the accused/respondent herein moved an application for sending postal record as submitted by the complainants/petitioners herein to the FSL expert for its opinion, which application came to be rejected by the trial court vide order dated 25.6.2018 against which order the accused/respondent herein filed a revision before the revisional court which revision has been allowed in terms of impugned order dated 15.3.2019.

7. The order impugned is being questioned inter alia on the grounds that the revisional court failed to notice the law governing the subject inasmuch as the only claim projected by the accused/respondent herein had been that he did not receive the demand notice despite the fact that he admitted the question of liability, the is