JUDGMENT - VISHNU SHAHAI, J.:---Heard Mr. Amit Desai with Mr. Prakash Naik for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Saxena for respondent No. 1 and the learned A.P.P. for respondent No. 2. 2. Through this application preferred under section 482 Cri.P.C. the petitioner prays that the order dated 19-11-1999 passed by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Bellard Estate, Mumbai, refusing to discharge/recall the process issued against the petitioner for offences punishable under sections 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the order dated 10th May, 2000 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Bombay, rejecting the petitioner's criminal revision against the said order, be quashed. 3. The factual matrix from which this application arises in brief is as under: Respondent No. 1 Harish Maheshwar, is Manager of M/s Apollo Finvest (India) Limited a company carrying on business of financing and investments in the field of business. On or about August/September 1994 on the request of the petitioner for inter-corporate deposit of Rs. 8 lakhs the complainant advanced the said sum to the petitioner on the condition that the Directors of the petitioner execute two demand promissory notes. They executed them; one dated 10-8-1994 for Rs. 3 lakhs and the other dated 7-9-1994 for Rs. 5 lakhs. The petitioner also issued two post dated cheques dated 9-11-1994 for Rs. 3 lakhs and 7-12-1994 for Rs. 5 lakhs, which were signed by its Managing Director one Mr. Raja Kumar Shah. It is alleged that when the said cheques were produced for payment on or about 8-5-1995 they were returned unpaid by the bankers with an endorsement "exceeds arrangement". Consequently on 20-5-1995 the complainant served a notice under section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, addressed to the petitioner company, intimating about the return of the cheques as unpaid and calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount. The petitioner company replied to the said letter and prayed for some time in making the payment but as it did not make the payment respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioner company and its Director Smita Shah in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay. The petitioner company replied to the said letter and prayed for some time in making the payment but as it did not make the payment respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioner company and its Director Smita Shah in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Bombay. On the said complaint a process was issued against them under sections 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the said Court which they challenged by preferring an application for recall/rescinding of the process, which application was dismissed by the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, vide his order dated 19-11-1999. The petitioner preferred a criminal revision against the said order dated 19-11-99, which was rejected vide order dated 10th May, 2000 passed by the 1st Addl. Principal Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. Hence this petition. 4. At the very inception I make no bones in observing that it is well-settled that interference in an application under section 482 Cr.P.C.; preferred at the instance of a party whose criminal revision has been dismissed is to be made in exceptional circumstances because section 397(3) Cr.P.C. bars a second revision at the instance of the same party and unless grave miscarriage of justice is brought to the notice of this Court it would not permit the said bar to be circumvented, for it is well settled that what cannot be done directly, the law would not permit to be done indirectly. 5. In my view the impugned orders suffer from no infirmity. 6. The facts mentioned in para 3 make it manifest that the offence punishable under section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against the petitioner company because it had taken a short term loan of Rs. 8 lakhs from the 1st respondent company; had issued two post dated cheques which when presented to the Bank were returned unpaid for the reasons "exceeds arrangement"; and despite the 1st respondent company giving statutory notice stipulated by sub-section (b) of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to the petitioner company, intimating the latter about the return of the cheques as unpaid and calling upon it to make the payment the petitioner company first pleaded for some time for paying the amount and ultimately did not pay. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. Desai learned Counsel for the petitioner company urged that since the signatory of the two cheques, which were post dated cheques dated 9-11-94 and 7-12-94 had died before the due dates mentioned in the cheques, the said cheques only remained a bill of exchange and no offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made out against the petitioner company. 8. I have reflected over Mr. Desai's submission and regret that I cannot accede to it. The petitioner company is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It conducts its business through its directors and other officers. Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for prosecution of a drawer of a cheque in the event of dishonour of cheque issued by the drawer and failure of the drawer to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of the notice to be given to it by the payee. Thus the liability to pay the amount arises on the failure of the drawer to pay the amount upon return of the cheque unpaid by the banker. The notice under section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be given to the drawer of the cheque and not to the signatory of the cheque and it is the drawer of the cheque who is liable to make the payment under the cheque, within the prescribed period and not the signatory. In such a situation the drawer of the cheque cannot escape the liability on the ground that the signatory died prior to the date mentioned in the cheque. I may also mention that the Supreme Court in the case of (Modi Cements Ltd. v. V. Kuchil Kumar Nandi)1, reported in 1999 Bank.J. (S.C.)83 has observed in para 21 as under : "It is needless to emphasize that the Court taking cognizance of the complaint under section 138 of the Act is required to be satisfied as to whether a prima facie case is made out under the said provisions. The drawer of the cheque undoubtedly gets an opportunity under section 139 of the Act to rebut the presumption at the trial. It is for this reason we are of the considered opinion that the complaints of the appellant could not have been dismissed by the High Court at the threshold." 9. The drawer of the cheque undoubtedly gets an opportunity under section 139 of the Act to rebut the presumption at the trial. It is for this reason we are of the considered opinion that the complaints of the appellant could not have been dismissed by the High Court at the threshold." 9. When the impugned orders are examined from the perspective laid down in the said decision and the reasons referred to earlier there can be no getting away from the fact that they are sustainable because the complaint prima facie, makes out a case under sections 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner company and that being so this petition would have to be dismissed. 10. For the said reasons I dismiss this petition. Since the complaint was filed on 26th June, 1995 and more than 5 years have elapsed I direct the trial Court to dispose of the case within a period of 4 months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, which shall be sent by the office by 1st August 2000. All issues are left open to the parties and they would be at liberty to raise them during trial. Issuance of certified copy expedited. Petition dismissed. -----