Judgment Heard Mr. Abhay Sambre, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr. S.G. Joshi, Advocate h/f Mr. A.S. Mardikar, Advocate for non-applicant No.1 and Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.2/State. 2. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The applicant is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldhana rejecting the revision application filed by the applicant. The applicant is the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehkar in Summary Criminal Case No.754/2004 and facing a trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The applicant had allegedly issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.10,20,438/-to non-applicant No.1. The cheque was presented in the bank within limitation period. It was dishonored by the bankers of the applicant and after giving statutory notice, a complaint was filed within the statutory period by non-applicant No.1. 4. The applicant moved the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mehkar for recalling of process/discharge. The said application was rejected. The applicant, therefore, moved the learned Sessions Judge for challenging the order of issuance of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was submitted before the learned Principal Sessions Judge that the cheque of Rs.10,20,438/-dated 15th April, 2004 was admittedly dishonoured by the bankers of the applicant. It was further submitted that the applicant, however, had issued a demand draft of the same sum on 22nd April, 2004 and had thereby discharged his liability. It was contended that non-applicant No.1 has dishonestly misused the cheque lying in his custody and has presented the same in the bank in the month of July 2004. 5. It is admitted position that there were regular business transactions between the applicant and non-applicant No.1. It is further admitted position that there was a transaction of 200 cotton bales in between 1st April, 2004 to 20th April, 2004. It is further admitted that there was a fresh transaction or another transaction in continuation in respect of certain more cotton bales and the amount was due from the applicant. 6. The controversy in the case is limited to the extent as to whether the cheque, which was lying in the custody of non-applicant No.1, was permitted to be utilized by non-applicant No.1 for the dues outstanding against the applicant in the next transaction. 7. 6. The controversy in the case is limited to the extent as to whether the cheque, which was lying in the custody of non-applicant No.1, was permitted to be utilized by non-applicant No.1 for the dues outstanding against the applicant in the next transaction. 7. It is submitted on behalf of non-applicant No.1 that the transaction was continuous one and that the cheque remained with non-applicant No.1 for being used against the amount due from the applicant. 8. As such this factual position has to be determined to arrive at a conclusion whether there was an implied authority to non-applicant No.1 to use the cheque issued by the applicant. It is not disputed that the cheque was presented in the bank twice. Therefore, as already stated, whether non-applicant No.1 had an authority to use the said cheque has to be decided. The learned Counsel Mr. Sambre has submitted that on the face of the contents of notice given by non-applicant No.1 and the reply given by the applicant, it is crystal clear that non-applicant No.1 was not supposed to use the said cheque. This contention could have been accepted and it was possible for the Court to put an end to the dispute without directing the applicant to face the trial. However, the applicant's Counsel is unable to tell the Court as to why the applicant allowed the cheque to remain in custody of non-applicant No.1 for a period of more than three months without making any grievance. In this regard, my attention has been invited to a carbon copy of handwritten letter dated 21/4/2004, in which the cheque was demanded back from non-applicant No.1. Receipt of this letter has been denied by non-applicant No.1. As such there are more than one factual issues, which need to be determined to ascertain whether the contention of the applicant is acceptable or otherwise. It, therefore, follows that the case will have to go for a trial. It cannot be decided under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application is devoid of merits and therefore, dismissed. Ad-interim order directing the stay on the proceedings shall continue to be in force for a period of four weeks from today to enable the applicant to move the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if he desires to do so.