JUDGMENT: R. K. Bag, J. The petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated January 30, 2015 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No.21 of 2014 whereby Learned Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated November 6, 2013 passed by Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta in complaint Case No.C3302 of 2012, in the instant revisional application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The opposite party being the complainant filed a petition of complaint before the Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the year 2008 there was a business deal between the opposite party and the petitioners and in discharge of the existing legal liability, the petitioners issued the account payee cheque bearing no.045747 dated 01.11.2011 for Rs.65 lakh and cheque no.045748 dated 16.11.2011 for Rs.1 crore 30 lakh drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, 8, Old Court House Street, Calcutta-700001 in favour of the opposite party company. On December 21, 2011 those cheques were dishonoured on presentation before HDFC Bank, Stephen House Branch, Calcutta-700001. The demand notice for payment was given by the opposite party company on January 19, 2012, but no payment was made within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice. Accordingly, the opposite party company started the criminal case against the petitioners, which was registered as Case No.C3302 of 2012. 3. On March 29, 2012, Learned Magistrate conducted the inquiry under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and considered the affidavit filed by the opposite party company and being satisfied about the prima facie offence under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act, issued process against the petitioners fixing April 17, 2012 for appearance. All the Petitioners appeared in due course before the Court of Learned Magistrate, except the petitioner no.4 who filed an application before Learned Magistrate for non-compliance of the provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Learned Magistrate. The petitioner no.4 made specific prayer for discharge of the petitioners on the ground that Learned Magistrate did not conduct any inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in spite of the fact that the petitioner no.4 resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Learned Magistrate. The petitioner no.4 made specific prayer for discharge of the petitioners on the ground that Learned Magistrate did not conduct any inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in spite of the fact that the petitioner no.4 resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Learned Magistrate. However, on May 14, 2013 Learned Magistrate allowed the prayer of the petitioner no.4 and discharged all the petitioners from the case and directed the officer-in-charge of Hare Street Police Station to conduct inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit report on June 14, 2013. Ultimately, the officer-in-charge of Hare Street Police Station submitted the report before the Court of Learned Magistrate on July 2, 2013 and Learned Magistrate again issued process against the petitioners on being satisfied that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act. The order dated November 6, 2013 by which Learned Magistrate issued process against petitioners was challenged before Learned Additional Sessions Judge by way of filing Criminal Revision No.21 of 2014. Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the Criminal Revision by affirming the order passed by Learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by Learned Additional Sessions in Criminal Revision No.21 of 2014. 4. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the opposite party company did not make specific averments in the petition of complaint about the role played by each of the petitioners for issuance of the cheques amounting to Rs.1 crore 30 lakh in favour of the opposite party company. Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that Learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to consider that Learned Magistrate did not assign any reason for arriving at the conclusion that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act. Mr. Bhattacharya has pointed out that Learned Additional Sessions Judge misdirected himself by not considering the fact that Learned Magistrate passed cryptic order without formation of opinion at the time of issuance of process against the petitioners. Mr. Bhattacharya has also urged that even the opposite party company was not satisfied with the report submitted by the officer-in-charge of Hare Street Police Station under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such the opposite party company prayed for another report before the court. Mr. Mr. Bhattacharya has also urged that even the opposite party company was not satisfied with the report submitted by the officer-in-charge of Hare Street Police Station under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such the opposite party company prayed for another report before the court. Mr. Bhattacharya has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in “Sunil Bharti Mittal V. Central Bureau of Investigation” reported in AIR 2015 SC 923 and “Mehmood-Ul-Rehman V. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and Ors.” reported in AIR 2015 (4) SCALE 381 in support of his above contention. 5. Mr. Tirthankar Ghosh, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party company contends that detailed reasons are not required to be recorded by Learned Magistrate to show formation of opinion for issuance of process under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Ghosh submits that Learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly observed that Learned Magistrate acted in excess of jurisdiction conferred on him by law by discharging the petitioners for non-compliance of the provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after issuance of process against them. Mr. Ghosh has vehemently urged that Learned Additional Sessions Judge is justified in affirming the order passed by Learned Magistrate. Mr. Ghosh has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in “Adalat Prasad V. Rooplal Jindal and Ors.” reported in (2004) 7 SCC 338 and “Bhushan Kumar and Anr. V. State (NCT of Delhi)” reported in (2012) 5 SCC 424 . 6. Before considering the rival contentions made by Learned Counsel of both parties it is necessary to point out how Learned Magistrate dealt with the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party company against the petitioners. By passing a reasoned order on March 29, 2012 Learned Magistrate issued process against the petitioner under Section 138/141 of the N. I. Act. Almost after one year on May 14, 2013 Learned Magistrate discharged all the petitioners from the criminal case for non-compliance of the provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on prayer of the present petitioner no.4. Almost after one year on May 14, 2013 Learned Magistrate discharged all the petitioners from the criminal case for non-compliance of the provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on prayer of the present petitioner no.4. Again, on November 6, 2013 Learned Magistrate issued summons to the petitioners calling upon them to appear before Court for commission of the offence under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act on the basis of the police report which was called for by him after discharge of the petitioners from the criminal case. Now, the question for consideration of the court is whether Learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly affirmed the order of Learned Magistrate in issuing process against the petitioners on the allegation of committing offence under Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 7. In “Sunil Bharti Mittal V. Central Bureau of Investigation” reported in AIR 2015 SC 923 , the Supreme Court has laid down in paragraph 47 as follows: “47. However, the words “sufficient grounds for proceeding” appearing in the Section are of immense importance. It is these words which amply suggest that an opinion is to be formed only after due application of mind that there is sufficient basis for proceeding against the said accused and formation of such an opinion is to be stated in the order itself. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against accused, though the order need not contain detailed reasons. A fortiori, the order would be bad-in-law if the reason given turns out to be ex facie incorrect.” The Supreme Court has also laid down in paragraph 23 of “Mehmood-Ul-Rehman V. Khazir Mohammad Tunda” reported in 2015 (4) SCALE 381 as follows: “… There must be sufficient indication in the order passed by the Magistrate that he is satisfied that the allegations in the complaint constitute an offence and when considered along with the statements recorded and the result of inquiry or report of investigation under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., if any, the accused is answerable before the criminal court, there is ground for proceeding against the accused under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., by issuing process for appearance. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind on the satisfaction. If there is no such indication in a case where the Magistrate proceeds under Sections 190/204 of Cr.P.C., the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is bound to invoke its inherent power in order to prevent abuse of the power of the criminal court …” 8. By applying the above test laid down by the Supreme Court I find that Learned Magistrate has formed the opinion to proceed against the petitioners by giving detailed reason in the order dated March 29, 2012. However, Learned Magistrate gave a go-by to the said order by discharging the petitioners from the criminal case on prayer of the petitioner no.4 on the ground that inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not conducted, in spite of the fact that the petitioner no.4 resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court of Learned Magistrate. The petitioner no.4 claimed to have been residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court of Learned Magistrate, but it appears from record that the petitioner no.4 appeared before the court of Learned Magistrate through Learned Advocate in response to the summons which was issued to him in his official address within the territorial jurisdiction of the court of Leaned Magistrate. The order of discharge of the petitioners from the criminal case was in violation of the direction given by the Supreme Court in the case of “Adalat Prasad V. Rooplal Jindal” reported in (2004) 7 SCC 338 . The view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of “K. M. Mathew V. State of Kerala” reported in (1992) 1 SCC 217 was considered by the Larger Bench in “Adalat Prasad V. Rooplal Jindal” (supra) and found that the law laid down in K. M. Mathew (supra) was not correct. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad (supra) is that there is no specific provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for recalling the order of issuance of process of Learned Magistrate. In this regard it is relevant to point out that Learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly held that Learned Magistrate acted in excess of jurisdiction conferred on him by law by discharging the petitioners from the criminal case for non-compliance of the provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. In this regard it is relevant to point out that Learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly held that Learned Magistrate acted in excess of jurisdiction conferred on him by law by discharging the petitioners from the criminal case for non-compliance of the provision of Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. The Supreme Court has laid down in paragraph 14 of “Bhushan Kumar V. State (NCT of Delhi)” reported in (2012) 5 SCC 424 as follows: “14. Time and again it has been stated by this Court that the summoning order under Section 204 of the Code requires no explicit reasons to be stated because it is imperative that the Magistrate must have taken notice of the accusations and applied his mind to the allegations made in the police report and the materials filed therewith.” The impugned order of Learned Magistrate dated November 6, 2013 challenged before the Court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge by way of revision indicates that Learned Magistrate perused the police report and the contents of the petition of complaint and thereafter formed opinion for issuance of process against the petitioners on the allegation of committing offence under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act. In my view Leaned Magistrate has formed opinion on consideration of the police report and the petition of complaint filed by the opposite party company and thereby learned Magistrate applied his mind before issuance of process against the petitioners under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act. Learned Magistrate did not give elaborate reasons for the purpose of arriving at his satisfaction for issuance of the process against the petitioners, but considered the petition of complaint and the report of inquiry submitted by the police before the Court of Learned Magistrate, which clearly indicates his application of mind for formation of opinion of issuance of process against the petitioners. In view of the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions discussed above I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment and order passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge by affirming the order of Learned Magistrate. 10. As a result, I do not find any merit in this criminal revision. The criminal revision is, thus, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 10. As a result, I do not find any merit in this criminal revision. The criminal revision is, thus, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The judgment and order dated January 30, 2015 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No.21 of 2014 is hereby affirmed. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent down to the learned Court below forthwith for favour of information and necessary action. The urgent photostat certified copy of the judgment and order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis after compliance with all necessary formalities.