1 The petitioner - original complainant in Criminal Case No. 1316 of 1999 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Borsad in Kheda district, has preferred these two criminal revisions under S.397 read with S.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), in order to challenge a common and consolidated order recorded by the said Court on 27-4-2001 in the aforesaid criminal case below applications Exhs. 22 and 25 filed by different set of accused persons facing the said criminal case.

2 Out of these two revisions, Criminal Revision Application No. 304 of 2001 has been filed against the said order passed by the said Court on an application of respondent No. 2 who was accused No. 5 in the said criminal case whereas Revision Application No. 305 of 2001 has been filed by the petitioner against the discharge of other accused persons who were facing the said criminal case before the said Court.

3 The facts of the case of the present petitioner - original complaint before the Trial Court in the aforesaid criminal case may be briefly stated as follows :
The present petitioner - original complainant had filed Criminal Case No. 1316 of 1999 before the aforesaid Court for an offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 . Therein, it was stated by the present petitioner, that on account of a contract of security, the contesting respondents in both the revision applications had issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner - original complainant on 10-11-1998 which was delivered to the petitioner on 11-11-1998. The said cheque contained dated 22-3-1999. It appears that the said cheque was presented for payment to the Bank and the Bank refused to honour the said cheque on the ground that the account was not operating and it was closed and it was transferred in the name of another institution. In fact, the endorsement was that the signature "differs". However, the fact remains that as per the admitted position, the second respondent of Revision Application No. 304 of 2001, Mr. D.D. Mehta had signed the cheque. But, it also remains a fact that the company on behalf of which the said cheque was signed by Mr. D.D. Mehta, who was originally accused No. 5 in the said criminal case, has stopped functioning another company was established, and therefore, the account of the said company was closed and the money was transferred in the name of the new company. In the meantime, the said respondent - D.D. Mehta had resigned from his position. His resignation was accepted and that fact was conveyed to the Registrar of Companies and there the fact was recorded in the records of the Registrar of Companies, Therefore, the endorsement of the bank was that the "signature differs". However, it is an admitted position that it was not a mere incomplete or irregular signature of D.D. Mehta. But the fact is that D.D. Mehta ceased to be an Officer of the said company and even the bank account of the said company was closed and the money was transferred in the name of the newly constituted company.

4 Any way, on account of the dishonour of the cheque, the present petitioner issued notice as per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act'). Since, the notice was not complied with and the amount stated in the cheque was not paid by the contesting respondents in both the revisions, the petitioner filed the aforesaid complaint against the contesting respondents of both the revision applications. During the pendency of the said criminal case, the contesting respondents submitted applications Exhs. 22 and 25 before the Trial Court. Out of them, D.D. Mehta being accused No. 5 in the said case, had filed application Exh. 22 whereas rest of the respondents in the cognate revision had filed application Exh. 25 before the Trial Court. In application Exh. 22, respondent No. 2 in the first revision application and accused No. 5 in original complaint contended that though the cheque was signe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document