- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and.perused the orders impugned.
(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused petitioners have a valid defence and therefore, considering the defence, the accused petitioners deserve to be discharged for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter).
(3.) From the perusal of the order passed by the.Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (for.short 'the trial court' hereinafter) dated 18.3.2005 it appears.that on a complaint filed by respondent complainant under...Section 138 of the Act, the trial court took the cognizance of the.offence and issued the process. On appearance of the accused.before the trial court, the accused moved an application under.Section 245 (2) and 259 Cr.P.C. seeking to discharge him on the.ground of certain defences agitated therein. The trial court prima-facie came to the conclusion that there is ground to.proceed against the accused petitioners for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and therefore, did not find any ground to.discharge the accused petitioners. The accused petitioners filed a.revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judges,.Gulabpura (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter). The.revisional court did not find any error in the order of the trial.court and held that at the time of cognizance and framing of.charge/ reading of substance of charge, the only material filed.by the police after investigation or the material placed on record.by the complainant in the complaint case is to be seen and the defences if any available to the accused cannot be considered at.that stage.;