JUDGMENT 1. - These three Misc. Petitions under Section 482 has been filed against the order passed by trial court whereby cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short NI Act). As in these three cases, the controversy is identical and filed by the same petitioner, they are decided by this common order. The facts are taken from SB Cr. Misc. Pet. No. 2716/2009. 2. The contention of the present petitioner is that cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner vide order dated 13.6.2006 and before taking cognizance the court below has not taken into consideration the material on record and in mechanical manner, the cognizance has been taken. The dispute between the parties was with regard to performance of the agreement and cognizance has been taken in cyclostyle orders in which even blanks have been filled in very casual manner, no loan has been advanced to him and dates have also been mentioned wrongly which shows the mechanical approach of the court below, hence the order of cognizance be quashed. Per contra, the contention of the respondent is that facts are not in dispute that cheque was issued to the complainant which was dishonoured and after due notice, payment has not been made. All these facts were before the court below hence the cognizance has rightly been taken. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned order. 4. It is true that on a computerized performa, cognizance has been taken but court below has specifically stated that cheque was delivered to the complainant which was presented into the Bank and dishonoured, registered notice was also sent to the petitioner in spite of receipt of notice, money has not been paid. It is true that on some facts regarding loan has also been stated but ignoring the fact of the loan, other facts and evidence which have been considered by the court below was sufficient to proceed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act and respondent has rightly relied upon Jagdish Ram v. State of Raj. It is true that on some facts regarding loan has also been stated but ignoring the fact of the loan, other facts and evidence which have been considered by the court below was sufficient to proceed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act and respondent has rightly relied upon Jagdish Ram v. State of Raj. & Anr., (2004) 4 SCC 432 where it has been held that where entire material has been taken into consideration by the Magistrate while taking cognizance, there is no requirement to record the reasons by the Magistrate before issuing process. 5. In view of the above, there is no perversity in the order of cognizance. Apart from it, the impugned order of cognizance has been assailed by the present petitioner by way of revision where liability has not been denied by the present petitioner and even it has not been disputed that cheques have not been issued by him and when present petitioner has already assailed the order by way of revision, this petition in the garb of second revision is not maintainable. 6. The other contention of the present petitioner is that before taking cognizance complainant has not been examined as provided under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Section 145 of the NI Act is answer to this objection which entitles the Magistrate to record the statements under Section 200 Cr.P.C., by way of an affidavit and impugned order speaks that affidavit supporting the complaint has been filed, hence in view of the above, all these petitions lacks merit and are dismissed. *******