JUDGMENT : Since the facts and issues are almost identical in both these Criminal Revision Applications, they were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The aforesaid Criminal Revision Applications have been filed by the applicant-original complainant under Section 397, against the Judgment and order dated 06.04.2002 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal Nos.95 of 1999 and 123 of 1999, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. For convenience, I would deal with the facts in Criminal Revision Application No.211 of 2002 arising out of Criminal Appeal No.95 of 1999. The applicant had filed Criminal Complaint No.2175 of 1997 and 3626 of 1997 on 05.08.1997 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent No.1original accused stating that the respondent No.1 had rented the house to Chandrikaben Shukla, (applicant of Criminal Revision Application No.212 of 2002) and had collected Rs.1,60,000/- as deposit. The amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was paid by the Chandrikaben Shuikla and rest amount of Rs.40,000/- was paid by the present applicant to help her sister Chandrikaben Shukla. Both the amounts were paid by account payee cheques. But after sometime, the respondent No.1 took the law in his hand and took the possession by breaking the lock of the rented premises. Thereafter on 30.05.1997, complaint was lodged in the police station, wherein, the respondent No.1 compromised the matter and agreed to return the deposit amounts. Consequently, issued the cheque No.14494 dated 29.06.1997 of Rs.40,000/- drawn in favour of the present applicant of Suryapur Cooperative Bank, Surat (besides this another cheque for the rest amount of Rs.1,20,000/- was issued in favour of Chandrikaben Shukla). The cheque was deposited in Vadodara Bank for encashment which return on 07.07.1997 with a remark of “Insufficient Funds.” On very same day, demand notice was sent through an advocate of the present applicant which was received by the respondent No.1 on 19.07.1997, however, the respondent No.1 did not reply to the said notice. Therefore, the criminal complaint Nos.2175 of 1997 and 3626 of 1997 have been filed before the learned JMFC, Vadodara. Therefore, the criminal complaint Nos.2175 of 1997 and 3626 of 1997 have been filed before the learned JMFC, Vadodara. The learned JMFC, Vadodara vide order dated 04.10.1999 convicted the respondent No.1 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of six months with fine of Rs.40,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of two moths. 4. Against the aforesaid order of conviction, the respondent No.1 preferred Criminal Appeal Nos.95 of 1999 and 123 of 1999 before the learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara. The learned Sessions Judge, Vadodara, vide order dated 06.04.2002, acquitted the respondent No.1 from the charges levelled against him. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of acquittal, the applicant-original complainant has filed the present Revision Applications. 6. Heard Mr. Manthan Patel, learned advocate for Mr. R.J. Goswami, learned advocate for the applicant-original complainant and Mr. L.R. Poojari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Notice issued by this Court is duly served upon the respondent No.2, however, none appeared. 7. Mr. Manthan Patel, learned advocate vehemently argued that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal, invalid and improper. He contended that the learned trial Jude has wrongly observed that the cheque which was given by applicant to the respondent No.1 is time barred under Section 18(2) of the Rent Act. He contended that the learned appellate Court has not even considered oral as well as documentary evidences and wrongly acquitted the respondent-accused. He contended that the cheque is given to the complainant by the respondent-accused and the same gets dishonoured and therefore, it is not proved that the complainant got the cheque by forcefully and by deceitfully. Lastly, he contended that the learned trial Judge has committed grave error in acquitting the respondent and therefore, he prayed to allow this revision applications. 8. As against this, Mr. L.R. Poojari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State has contended that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is absolutely just and proper. He has contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced on record, order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is absolutely just and legal and is not required to be interfered with therefore, he prayed to dismiss this appeal. 9. He has contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and evidence produced on record, order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is absolutely just and legal and is not required to be interfered with therefore, he prayed to dismiss this appeal. 9. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court and oral as well as documentary evidence produced on record of the case. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witness and also perused the charge framed against the respondent-accused. 10. In the present case, cheque were given as deposit and therefore, as per Section 18(2) of the Act, one should file a case within a period of six months after giving the deposit amount, failing which, his right to get back the deposit amount gets fortified. In the present case, the complainant has given the amount of deposit to respondent No.1 on 02.11.1996, whereas, the respondent No.1 has given the cheque on 29.06.1997 i.e. after a period of six months and therefore, the same is time barred and hence, the learned trial Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent No.1accused from the charges levelled against him. 11. I am, therefore of the opinion that the learned trial Judge has not committed any error in acquitting the respondent-accused from the charges levelled against him. Therefore, no interference is required. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.04.2002 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal Nos.95 of 1999 and 123 of 1999, is hereby confirmed. The present Criminal Revision Applications deserve to be dismissed and the same are hereby dismissed. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith.