SURENDRABHAI PATEL Vs. BRIJ KISHORE PALOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is informed that both these cases have been listed by way of supplementary list, but at this stage (11.35 a.m.) it can not be accepted that the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent has no knowledge about listing of these case.

(2.) As submitted by Shri Sharma, a common point of law is involved in both the cases and parties are also same, but as two criminal cases are pending based on two different cheques alleged to be issued by the petitioners, hence two petitions have been tiled. He submits that both the cases can be decided by one order. In view of this, both these cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) These two petitions have been filed for invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 24th October, 2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Vidisha in Criminal Revision No. 192 of 2006 and 193 of 2006, whereby the learned Judge has affirmed two different orders passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vidisha in two different criminal cases No. 232 of 2004 and 244 of 2004 taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).