1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R 1. S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.1069/2007. 2. S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.PETITION NO.1070/2007. Rikhab Chan Jain Vs. Ganpati Malti Commodity Business India pvt.Ltd. Petition under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. against the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar in Criminal Revision Petitions No.124/07 & 125/07. Date of Order :: 9th August, 2007. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK Mr. I.R. Choudhary for petitioner. BY THE COURT: By these two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.05.2007 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No.370/2006 and 531/2006 whereby the petitioners application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning record from the respondent was dismissed. The said order was challenged before the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, who dismissed 2 Criminal Revision Petitions No.124/2007 & 125/2007 by order dated 09.07.2007 and affirmed the order passed by the learned trial court. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the point of law and facts involved in these cases are almost identical. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was business transaction between the parties and infact no such business transaction took place as stated in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the complainant, therefore, it was essential to have ordered to place the entire record in relation to the business transaction which took place between the parties. Learned counsel submits that both the courts below failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter, therefore, this petition requires to be admitted and accepted. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the order passed by the learned trial court. The learned trial cout has considered the matter in detail and has referred to document Ex.D/1, D/4, D/5, D/6 and found that in this case where 3 the cheque was bounced and the transaction took place between the parties, the application was not required to be accepted. Learned revisional court has considering the matter in detail and has also considered this aspect of the matter that when the cheque was bounced and notice was given but despite efforts notices were not all accepted thus the complaint was filed. As regard cheque and signatures are concerned, it has been dishonored. Learned revisional court thus affirmed the order passed by the larned trial cout vide order dated 9.7.2007. In the above factual matrix, it appears that the two courts below have concurrently found that the application moved by the petitioner is not required to be accepted, therefore, rejected the same. The findings are to the effect that for proper and just decision of the case, it was not essential to have allowed the application. In view of concurrent findings of two courts, I do not find any reason to admit these petitions which are devoid of merit. Accordingly, the misc petitions stand rejected. (SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK), J. vij 4