D. P. BUCH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner above named has preferred this Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short ) challenging the judgment and conviction order September 30, 2002, recorded by the learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad in Criminal appeal No. 3 of 2002, under which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the judgment and conviction order dated 27/12/2001, recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10, Ahmedabad City in Criminal Case No. 1689 of 1998 under which the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicted the present petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("the Act" for short) and sentenced him to suffer SI for one year and directing him to pay fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 and in default of payment of fine, the petitioner was directed to undergo further SI for three months. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case of the complainant before the trial Court may be briefly stated as follows :according to the case of the second respondent, the second respondent has been dealing with sale of chemicals at Ahmedabad. According to the case of the second respondent before the trial Court, the petitioner herein is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. That the petitioner used to purchase goods from the second respondent on credit and an account was also kept in the books of account of the second respondent. The second respondent used to issue bills for the goods purchased by and delivered to the present petitioner. That on completing the account, an amount of Rs. 1,12,359. 00 was found to be due to the second respondent by the petitioner. Therefore, the second respondent demanded the said amount. That at that time, the petitioner issued four cheques as follows :1. Cheque No. 114816, dated 28-3-98 for Rs. 36,938-002. Cheque No. 114817, dated 7-4-98 for Rs. 36,880. 003. Cheque No. 114820, dated 15-4-98 for Rs. 37,421. 004. Cheque No. 114822, dated 27-4-98 for Rs. 34,500. 00 ( 3 ) THAT the proprietor of the petitioner-company signed the cheques and they were handed over to the second respondent ; that the petitioner assured the second respondent that those cheques would be encashed and honoured by the bank concerned. 003. Cheque No. 114820, dated 15-4-98 for Rs. 37,421. 004. Cheque No. 114822, dated 27-4-98 for Rs. 34,500. 00 ( 3 ) THAT the proprietor of the petitioner-company signed the cheques and they were handed over to the second respondent ; that the petitioner assured the second respondent that those cheques would be encashed and honoured by the bank concerned. ( 4 ) THAT thereafter, in accordance with the instruction of the petitioner, the second respondent presented the cheques on 27/06/1998 before Navnirman Cooperative Bank at Rakhial Branch. That at that time, the cheques were dishonoured on the ground that the balance was insufficient. That thereafter, the second respondent approached the petitioner and informed the petitioner about dishonour of cheques. That at that time, the petitioner requested the second respondent that the financial condition was not good and therefore, the cheques may be again presented on 30/09/1998 and at that time the cheques would be positively honoured. That, therefore, the contesting respondent again presented the said cheques before the concerned bank on 30/09/1998. That at that time also the cheques were returned on 3/10/1998 with an endorsement that the balance was insufficient. ( 5 ) THAT, therefore, the second respondent issued a notice dated 1 3/10/1998 by R. P. A. D. That the said notice was served upon the petitioner on 26th October, 1998 ; that despite the said position the petitioner neither paid the amount of the cheques nor replied the said notice. That, therefore, the petitioner has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and therefore, the petitioner may be dealt with in accordance with the law. ( 6 ) ON receipt of the said complaint on 21st November, 1998 the trial Court recorded verification of the petitioner on oath and thereafter directed that the summons be issued for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner. ( 7 ) IN response to the service of summons, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court. The petitioner was supplied with the copy of the complaint. Plea was recorded. The petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the evidence produced by the second respondent was recorded. At the end of evidence, the trial Court recorded further statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code. The petitioner was supplied with the copy of the complaint. Plea was recorded. The petitioner pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the evidence produced by the second respondent was recorded. At the end of evidence, the trial Court recorded further statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code. There also the petitioner did not plead guilty and contended that a false case was made out against the petitioner. The trial Court heard oral arguments advanced before it by the learned advocates for the parties. Thereafter, the trial Court pronounced the judgment and convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as aforesaid. ( 8 ) FEELING aggrieved by the said judgment and conviction order of the trial Court, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2002 before the City Sessions Court at Ahmedabad. The said appeal came to be heard by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 16 of the said Court. The learned Judge by judgment and order dated 30th September, 2002 dismissed the said appeal of the present petitioner. Hence, this revision application. ( 9 ) THE petitioner has contended in this revision application that the judgments and orders of the two courts below are illegal and perverse and deserve to be set aside. That the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has not considered the contentions raised by the petitioner before the said Court. That though the second respondent has claimed that an amount of Rs. 1,12,359. 00 was due to the second respondent by the petitioner, the second respondent did not produce any evidence or material or account to show that the said amount was due to the second respondent by the petitioner. That the two Courts below have committed an error in not accepting the defence of the petitioner that the amount said to be due to the second respondent was really not due. That in fact, the cheques were given in advance and the two Courts below have not considered that there was no material before the Courts below that the good was really supplied to the petitioner by the second respondent. That if the total amount due was Rs. 1,12,359. 00, then in that case, the trial Court ought to have considered that the cheques were issued worth Rs. 1,45,739. That if the total amount due was Rs. 1,12,359. 00, then in that case, the trial Court ought to have considered that the cheques were issued worth Rs. 1,45,739. 00 and therefore, two figures do not tally and without any explanation about the same, the two Courts below ought not to have accepted the version of the second respondent. That the second respondent has no where explained the difference in the said two figures, even in the notice issued to the petitioner demanding the amount of cheques. That the evidence of the second respondent that there was a settlement between the parties, has not been substantiated by any material on record. That the cheques were initially returned, as per the case of the second respondent, on 27-6-98 and yet the second respondent did not move at all for a period of three months and the said period has not been explained on record. That the alleged second presentment of the cheques is only with a view to come out of the clutches of limitation within which the complaint ought to have been filed. That as per the case of the second respondent, the demand notice was issued on 13-10-98 and as per the case of the second respondent, the notice was served on 26-10-98 ; That there was no reason for the delay of 13 days in service of notice ; that even the complaint has been filed very late thereafter. That there is no material on record to show that the person filing the complaint had an authority to file the same. That on the whole, the judgments and conviction orders recorded by two Courts below are illegal and perverse and deserve to be set aside. ( 10 ) THE petitioner has therefore, prayed that the present revision application be allowed, the judgments and conviction orders recorded by the two Courts below may be set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted. ( 11 ) ON receiving the revision application, Rule was issued and in response to the service of notice of Rule learned A. P. P. Mr. S. S. Patel has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1-State, learned advocate Mr. F. B. Brahmabhatt has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties. They have taken me through the oral and documentary evidence on record. S. S. Patel has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1-State, learned advocate Mr. F. B. Brahmabhatt has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties. They have taken me through the oral and documentary evidence on record. ( 12 ) IN fact, the petitioners case was argued initially by learned advocate Mr. M. B. Gandhi. Learned advocate Ms. Gandhi also argued on behalf of the petitioner. Now if we go through the case of the second respondent before the trial Court, it is very clear that as per the case of the second respondent, the petitioner used to purchase goods on credit from the second respondent and bills were issued by the second respondent for the said sale. That at the end of the transaction, an amount of Rs. 1,12,359. 00 was due to the second respondent by the petitioner and as against that, four cheques as aforesaid were issued by the petitioner in the name of the second respondent. The cheques were dishonoured and therefore, the complaint was filed after issuance of notice of demand. ( 13 ) IN order to substantiate the said case, the second respondent has examined before the trial Court one Babubhai Shankarbhai at Exh. 3. He is the first witness for the second respondent. According to his evidence, he has been dealing with chemical business in the names of Western Chemicals, Vaishali Chemicals and Vikas Chemicals. That the petitioner herein had entered into a transaction with the said two concerns ; that an amount of Rs. 1,12,359. 00 was due to the second respondent by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner issued four cheques as aforesaid in favour of the second respondent ; that all the cheques were presented to the bank and they were dishonoured on the ground that the balance was insufficient. ( 14 ) THE witness has further deposed before the trial Court that the cheques were shown to him and they were the same cheques which were issued to the second respondent by the petitioner. He produced the cheques and proved the same before the Court concerned. The witness has further deposed that since the cheques were dishonoured, appropriate memos were received from the concerned bank showing that the balance was insufficient. Those memos have also been produced by the second respondent before the trial Court. He produced the cheques and proved the same before the Court concerned. The witness has further deposed that since the cheques were dishonoured, appropriate memos were received from the concerned bank showing that the balance was insufficient. Those memos have also been produced by the second respondent before the trial Court. ( 15 ) THE witness has further stated that an amount of Rs. 1,12,359. 00 was due to the second respondent by the petitioner and against the said dues, the petitioner had issued 4 cheques, total of which would come to Rs. 1,45,000. 00. It is further deposed by him that the remaining balance has been credited in the account of Vikas Chemicals. He has further stated that demand notice was issued and it bears the signatures of his advocate. He produced the same at Exh. 16. The postal acknowledgments have also been produced on record. It is further deposed by him that a separate notice was issued to the petitioner under certificate of posting which certificate was produced at Exh. 19 before the trial Court. He has further deposed before the trial Court that the petitioner neither replied nor complied with the notice and therefore, complaint has been filed. ( 16 ) IN cross-examination, he has deposed that he has been dealing in the chemical business in the name of Western Chemicals since last 26 years and he has also been paying income tax. He has also stated that he is prepared to produce the income tax returns for the year1997/98. He has further stated that he has been maintaining books of accounts of Western Chemicals and he has shown his readiness to produce copies thereof on the record of the case. He has further stated that he is prepared to produce the bills of goods supplied to the petitioner. He has also deposed that at the time of recording the orders, the signatures are obtained on order slips and he has shown his readiness to produce those slips also. ( 17 ) THEN he has stated that as per the system of the market, cheques are issued at the time of the placement of orders. However, he has clarified that the cheques are issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract after the receipt of the goods. ( 17 ) THEN he has stated that as per the system of the market, cheques are issued at the time of the placement of orders. However, he has clarified that the cheques are issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract after the receipt of the goods. He has further stated that he has not rendered explanation with respect to the additional amount of Vikas Chemical, in his complaint. He has denied that there was a dispute about the price of goods. He has also denied that the goods in question was not supplied by the second respondent to the petitioner. ( 18 ) THEN there is the evidence of witness Vithhalbhai Karshanbhai Prajapati at Exh. 20. He has been serving as a Branch Manager in Vijay Co-operative Bank, Nehru Bridge Branch at Ahmedabad. He has deposed before the trial Court that the cheques in question were shown to him and they were issued by the present petitioner ; that the maximum balance in the account of the petitioner was Rs. 531. 00 only. An attempt was made to show that the witness was not acquainted with the signature of signatory of the cheques. ( 19 ) THEREAFTER, in further statement under Section 313 of the Code, the petitioner has stated before the trial Court that the cheques were issued as deposit and not against the delivery of the goods. He has also stated that he has never received the notice in question. ( 20 ) ON the strength of the above evidence, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the cheques were issued against the dues by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was liable to see that the cheques were honoured. It is further observed by the trial Court that despite the service of notice, the petitioner did not make the arrangement for the payment of cheques. That, therefore, there is a clear case of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. .