DEEPAK MAHESHWARI,J. - (1.) This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred by accused/petitioner Shyam Sunder challenging the order dated 2nd February, 2009 passed by learned trial Court for stating the accusation to him under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as also the order passed by learned Revisional Court on 19th February, 2010 whereby, the revision petition preferred by the accused/petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the accused/petitioner as also learned counsel appearing for the complainant/non-petitioner No. 2 and learned Public Prosecutor.
(3.) Learned counsel for the accused/petitioner submits that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the matter. A complaint has been wrongly filed by the complainant/non-petitioner No.2 against him. A cheque (Annexure-2) on the basis of which, this complaint has been filed against the accused/petitioner was not issued by the petitioner but the same was issued by his son Vishnu for and on behalf of M/s Vishnu Trading Company. If the cheque has been dishonoured then, the liability for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be fastened only upon the drawer of the cheque but in any way cannot be fastened upon the accused/petitioner. So, the accusation drawn against the petitioner vide order dated 2nd February, 2009 is completely without any justification. He has relied upon the following judgments:- (i). Aparna A. Shah v. Sheth Developers Private Limited and Anr. reported in (2013) 8 SCC 71 ; (ii). T.N. Devi v. A.C. Haridas and Anr. reported in 2004 CRI.L.J. 4710 (Kerala High Court); and, (iii). Geeta Srivastava v. Bhanu Sharma reported in 2003 CRI.L.J. 801 .;