G.D. Saxena, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 preferred by the Petitioner/accused is directed against an order dated 4th June, 2010 passed in Criminal Case No. 914/2007 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ganj Basoda, District Vidisha, rejecting thereby a petition for recalling process issued by the Trial Court.

2. The brief facts, just for the decision of this revision petition, are that accused Sanjay Mahalwar being a Partner of firm named "Pyarelal Tarachand Mahalwar" Ganj Basoda issued a cheque No. 1366904, dated 30th July, 2006 for a sum of Rs. 1,12,000/- and a cheque No. 1481590, dated 20th October, 2006 for a sum of Rs. 1,12,000/-, to be drawn at Bhopal Regional Gramin Bank, Branch Basoda, in favour of the complainant against a borrowed money received by him for the need of the business of the said firm as well as for his personal ground. When the complainant presented these two cheques for encashment-at the bank, same were returned for want of sufficient fund in, the account of the holder. Then, the complainant sent a legal notice to the Petitioner-accused, through registered A/d post. Despite service of notice, the accused did not bother to pay the amount. Consequently, the complaint against the firm and its partners was filed before the Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in which cognizance has been taken against the Petitioner-accused for the alleged offence. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Misc. Cr. Case No. 3460/2009) before this Court and by an order dated 23rd September, 2009, this Court disposed of the same with the following directions:

From perusal of the record, it is clear that upon a complaint by Respondent, learned Trial Court has taken cognizance against the Petitioner by the impugned order. In such circumstances, petition is disposed of with a direction that the Petitioner shall move an application before the Trial Court wherein he shall mention all the facts regarding the innocence. If such application is filed by the Petitioner then the learned Trial Court after hearing the Respondent, shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

3. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that in compliance with the directions aforesaid of this Court, the Petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court concerned, which was rejected under the order impugned, hence, this revision.

4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is manifestly illegal and against the principles of natural justice. It is submitted by the Counsel that as per averments of the complaint the questioned cheques were signed and issued by Sanjay Mahalwar, Partner of the Firm. The said firm was in the sole proprietorship of one Late Tara Chand Mahalwar and after his death, the business of the firm was under the control of Sanjay Mahalwar, therefore, the Petitioner is not at all responsible for the deeds of Sanjay Mahalwar, Partner of the Firm. Hence, it is prayed that the order dated 4th June, 2010 passed by the Trial Court be quashed and the Petitioner be discharged of the alleged offence.

5. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent supported the impugned order under revision and requested to dismiss the revision being found without substance.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Also perused the documents and certified/photo copies of the orders filed with the revision for consideration by the parties and the law applicable to the case.

7. On perusal of the complaint case, it appears that accused Sanjay Mahalwar, the Partner of Firm, "Pyarelal Tarachand Mahalwar", received Rs. 2,24,000/- on credit for the need of the business of the said firm as well as for his personal ground from the complainant. For discharging the liability of the sai