JUDGMENT Heard. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith. 2. Respondents in each of the revision were prosecuted for offense under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On analysis of the evidence and the documents, learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, on 11.3.2008 convicted respondent nos. 2 and 3 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period often days each and to pay fine, jointly and severally. From the said fine amount, in each of the complaint petition, the amounts of Rs.15,000/- was to be paid over to the petitioner. The matter was carried by respondent nos. 2 and 3 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in three different appeals being Criminal Appeal Nos. 55/2008, 56/2008, 57/2008. The appeals were allowed. 3. Respondent nos.3 and 4 inspite of service dated 7.6.2010, did not participate. 4. The respondents did not dispute the dealings with the petitioner firm of purchase of cattle feed on credit and also issuing cheques. The ground that was raised was, there was different ink in the body of the cheque. Learned appellate Court felt that the cheques were blank and a probable defense, another finding rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was that in the body, writing of the cheque and signature illustrate different inks. The respondent, as accused, did not suggest to the witness or the petitioner that the cheques have been misused or that the same were blank signed cheques. The respondent did not discharge the obligation as to in what capacity the cheques came in possession of the complainant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge un-warrantedly observed that ledger entries were not proved by the petitioner. The accused nos.2 and 3 did not dispute of business transactions and the accused issuing post dated cheques to the complainant for the goods purchased on credit of 30 days. There was no discharge of onus from the respondents about the cheque given in different situations or that they were blank. The statutory notice in each of the case was sent. The amount due against the cheques was claimed, however, inspite of rendering intimation dated 29.9.2004, there was no response. The order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, calls for interference. It is set aside and that of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, in STC No.6148/2005, 6146/2005, 6149/2005 is maintained. Criminal Revision Applications allowed as above. Rule made absolute. Revision Applications allowed.