( 1 ) THIS is an application for relief under S. 482, Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) IN this application the grouse of the complainant is that Complaint Case No. 171 of 1998 Ashoka Kumar Bhargawa v. Anil kumar Jaiswal under S. 138, the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter called the act) against the applicant pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vi, Allahabad filed on basis of the 6 cheques, one of which is only in the name of complainant and the rest in the name of different payees, is not maintainable. The reason being the complainant cannot be said to toe the "payee or holder in due course" of those 5 cheques which are in the name of different payees and the trial Court was therefore not competent to take cognizance under S. 142 of the act on basis of those 5 cheques. The order of the trial Magistrate passed on the application of the applicant given in this behalf, on 15-3-1999 is, therefore, not sustainable.

( 3 ) I have heard Sri Sharad Malviya, advocate for the applicant, learned A. G. A. far the State and Sri Rarneshwar Nath, advocate for opposite party No. 2/compiainant.

( 4 ) SECTION 118 of the act in Cl. (g) of which the phrase "that holder is a holder i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document