ORDER : 1. This Court noticed that the parties appearing in these three different applications are same, involving same set of facts and issues, hence, all these three applications are heard together. 2. These applications are filed by the original complainant seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 24.04.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2018 whereby the judgment and order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhidham, Kutch in Criminal Case No. 4022 of 2011 recording order of acquittal came to be confirmed. 3. Heard Ms. Shubha B. Tripathi, learned advocate on record appearing for the applicants, Mr. Manthan V. Shukla, learned advocate on record appearing for respondent No. 2-original accused and Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the respondent-State. 4. Ms. Shubha Tripathi, learned advocate on record for the applicant has invited attention of this Court to the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court while recording the order of acquittal. She has submitted that the original complainant and the accused were friends and on various occasions the complainant had landed money to respondent No. 2. It is her case that the respondent No. 2 had assured the complainant to repay such amount by installments. She further submitted that it was against such outstanding amount, the respondent No. 2-original accused had issued three cheques being cheque number-724946 dated 23.04.2011, 724948 dated 23.04.2011 and 724947 dated 23.04.2011 each for an amount of Rs. 75,000/- drawn on the Gandhidham Co-operative Bank Limited, Gandhidham Branch. Such three cheques were issued in the name of the complainant. She had further submitted that all the three cheques were presented through his account with State Bank of India, Gandhidham Branch, Gandhidham for realization of the said amounts. However, such amount was not realized as the cheques were dishonoured by the drawee bank. The complainant was in receipt of the memo issued by the State Bank of India dated 13.10.2011 about cheque return and the reasons stated in the said memo was on the ground of “insufficient fund.” She further submitted that on 24.10.2011, legal notice was addressed to the respondent No. 2, whereby, the respondent No. 2 was called upon to make good the payment within a period of 15 days, failing which, appropriate legal action was to be initiated. Though, the said notice was served upon the accused by the registered post AD on 24.10.2011, the accused choose not to respond to such notice. In such circumstances, the complainant was constrained to approach the concerned Court for lodging three different complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 5. Ms. Shubha Tripathi, learned advocate further submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent No. 2 and accused were known to each other since long and the accused had in fact not disputed about issuance of cheque. She further submitted that the only defence which was put forth by the accused was that such cheques were given towards collateral security and not towards any legal debt or liability. In light of the aforesaid fact, she submitted that learned Trial Court ought to have drawn presumption in favour of the complainant. She further submitted that inspite of service of legal notice upon the accused and accused having not responded to such notice, the ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act will fulfilled. She therefore, submitted that the learned Trial Court ought not to have rejected the complaint. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Manthan V. Shukla, learned advocate on record appearing for respondent No. 2 has invited attention of this Court to the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the complaint. He has submitted that the accused had raised specific defence that no such cheques were issued by the accused against the so called outstanding amount. He has further submitted that the signature of the accused is not proved on the cheque. In fact, the account belongs to the wife of the accused namely Deepa Prakash Chandnani. In support, the accused have examined the concerned officer of the bank who has placed on record the details of the account holder of the said cheques. The said witness has also placed on record the statement of accounts of said bank in the name of wife of accused, right from dated 01.04.2011 to 20.05.2013 which does not reflect the name of accused. She has also relied upon Exhibit-35 which is the extract of cheque issued by the concerned bank with regard to issuance of cheque book. The said witness has also placed on record the statement of accounts of said bank in the name of wife of accused, right from dated 01.04.2011 to 20.05.2013 which does not reflect the name of accused. She has also relied upon Exhibit-35 which is the extract of cheque issued by the concerned bank with regard to issuance of cheque book. It transpires from the said record that the disputed cheque book has been issued in the name of Deepa Prakash Chandnani in absence of his name in the said account as joint holder. He, therefore, submitted that the trial Court has committed no error in not believing the case put forth by the complainant and has rightly rejected the complaint. He, therefore, urges this Court to not to entertain the present applications. 7. Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned APP has submitted to pass appropriate orders. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 9. The only question which false for consideration of this Court is whether the applicant-original complainant has put forth a case to grant leave to prefer an appeal to challenge the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties have fairly conceded that the judgment and order dated 24.04.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gandhidham in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2018 is concerned, on maintainability is not disputed. It appears from the record that the learned Sessions Judge has proceeded not to entertain the appeal on the ground of maintainability as the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the proper remedy available to the complainant was to present an appeal before this Court under sub section 4 of Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the present applications are filed seeking permission to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.05.2017 in Criminal Case No. 4022 of 2011, passed by the learned 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhidham. 10. I have gone through the orders recording acquittal passed by the trial Court. It is an undisputed fact that the disputed cheque belongs to the account which is not in the name of the accused. No material evidence has been brought on record to contradict the aforesaid fact. 10. I have gone through the orders recording acquittal passed by the trial Court. It is an undisputed fact that the disputed cheque belongs to the account which is not in the name of the accused. No material evidence has been brought on record to contradict the aforesaid fact. If one look at the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in order to constitute an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jugesh Sehgal vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi, (2009) 14 SCC 683 , the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled: “(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account. (ii) the cheque should have been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. (iii) that cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. (iv) that cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank. (v) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. (vi) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.” 11. Being cumulative, it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act. Being cumulative, it is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act. Considering the language used in Section 138 and taking note of peculiar facts of the case where the disputed cheque is not proved to be issued on an account maintained by accused, I am of the view that it is only “drawer” of the cheque who can be made liable for the penal action under the provisions of the N.I. Act. It is settled position of law that strict interpretation is required to be given to the penal statutes. The proceedings arising under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are concerned relates to criminal liability on account of dishonour of cheque. Generally, in the case involving criminal liability is concerned, the same is attributed to the “individual” person alleged to have committed the offence. To put it in other words, no one can be held criminally liabilty for an act, of another. In present case, the account of the disputed cheque does not belongs to the accused, at the same time, the wife of the accused, who is otherwise the actual holder of the account, is not arraigned as an accused in original complaint. Even otherwise, she is not signatory to such cheques. This Court had inquired from the learned advocate appearing for the complainant as to whether the accused was joint account holder to which the learned advocate for the complainant has fairly conceded that the account was solely in the name of the wife of the accused. 12. At this stage, it would be apt to revisit legal position as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of liability of joint account holders. In case of Aparna A. Shah vs. M/s. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Another, (2013) 8 SCC 71 , the Hon’ble Apex Court in peculiar facts of the case of joint account holder has ultimately held that in proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act in case of issuance of cheque from joint account, joint holder cannot be prosecuted unless the cheque has been signed by the every person who is account holder. The Court reiterated that it is only the drawer of cheque who can be made accused under Section 138 of the Act. 13. The Court reiterated that it is only the drawer of cheque who can be made accused under Section 138 of the Act. 13. I am, therefore, of the view that no error of fact or law is committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class while recording the order of acquittal. In my considered opinion, this is not a case for grant of leave to file appeal. Hence, present applications are not entertained and summarily rejected.