JUDGMENT : P.N. DESHMUKH, J. 1. None for the parties. 2. The record reveals that on the earlier date, though Counsel for petitioner was present, as none was present for respondent, matter was adjourned to today with a view to give one more opportunity to respondent to defend the petition on merits. Today neither parties nor their Counsel are present. The petition is, therefore, considered on merits as no record and proceedings are found necessary in view of the fact that challenge in this petition is to orders of learned Magistrate and learned revisional Court not taking cognizance against respondent for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petition is required to be considered also in view of the fact that stay to trial is operating since 29.8.2009 when notice came to be issued to respondent. 3. It is noted that petitioner has filed complaint against respondent/accused No. 1 and two others under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that respondent/ accused No. 1 is Manager of Maharshi Sudarshan Bahuuddeshiya Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur and accused Nos. 2 and 3 are Secretary and Member of said Society having joint account with Nagpur District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Nagpur. In the complaint, petitioner has given details of his transactions with accused and issuance of disputed cheque. It is further noted that learned Magistrate after recording verification of complainant and finding that disputed cheque is signed by accused Nos. 2 and 3, which came to be dishonoured, issued process against them only and discharged respondent. The said order was assailed by petitioner before learned revisional Court, who by judgment dated 23.1.2009 dismissed the revision. Hence, this petition. 4. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to state that from the record it appears that learned Magistrate by issuing process against accused Nos. 2 and 3 only, has discharged accused No. 1, finding that he is not signatory to the disputed cheque. However, learned trial Court while passing such order discharging accused No. 1 does not appear to have properly worded the same as the said order is within the ambit of section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure and as per said section, if it is found by learned Magistrate that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed, then he is required to dismiss the complaint against all accused or a particular accused. It is, however, found that learned trial Court finding that no case is made out against accused No. 1, instead of dismissing the complaint against him, used words that accused No. 1 is discharged. In other words, since learned Magistrate did not find sufficient material to proceed against accused No. 1, it was necessary for him to dismiss the complaint under section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure against said accused. 5. Coming to the merits part of the present petition, it is found that after issuance of process against accused Nos. 2 and 3 only, petitioner/complainant vide Exh.24 filed application before learned trial Court and by order dated 25.8.2008, learned trial Court rejected the said application holding that Court has no power to recall its own order. Petitioner thus approached learned revisional Court by way of revision, which came to be dismissed as aforesaid. 6. From the order of learned revisional Court, it appears that learned revisional Court has duly considered the fact of issuance of disputed cheque, which is on record having signatures of Secretary and member only of Maharshi Sudarshan Bahuuddeshiya Seva Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Nagpur. As such, there is no signature of either President or Manager of the said Society. Respondent in the petition is shown as Manager of the said Society and admittedly, he is not signatory to the disputed cheque. Similarly, in the complaint, respondent is shown as Manager of the said Society. 7. In view of above stated facts when provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are considered, it goes without saying that this section is in respect of dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds in the Account and, therefore, persons, who had signed the disputed cheque, are made accused. In the present petition, as stated above, no signature of respondent appears on the disputed cheque and, therefore, since respondent does not appear to have signed the cheque, he cannot be prosecuted under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. Considering the above legal position, learned Magistrate thus appears to have rightly refused to proceed against respondent by dismissing complaint against respondent. In view of above stated facts, learned trial Court has rightly rejected Exh.24 moved by petitioner by observing that it has no power to recall its own order. The learned revisional Court having considered facts involved in the revision has rightly dismissed the same. In view of above stated facts, learned trial Court has rightly rejected Exh.24 moved by petitioner by observing that it has no power to recall its own order. The learned revisional Court having considered facts involved in the revision has rightly dismissed the same. The impugned orders are just and proper and need no interference. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.