HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No. 4728 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner is questioning the order dated 27.11.2009 passed by the XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No. 756 of 2009 in C.C.No. 410 of 2008, which order was confirmed by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crl.R.P.No. 22 of 2010. Before appreciating contentions of the petitioner’s counsel, a brief reference to facts alleged in the complaint is necessary. The complaint was originally filed by Dr. N. Satyanarayana, describing him in the cause title as Chief Executive Officer, M/s Exposoft India Private Limited, having its office at H.No. 8-3-945/A/12, Nagarjuna Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused entered into MOU, dated 31.10.2006 with M/s Exposoft India (P) Limited (in short, the company) for development of land said to belong to him and that various amounts were paid by the company to the accused under various receipts and that the accused paid Rs.40 lakhs towards part payment of refund of the said amounts and also issued cheque dated 10.01.2007 drawn on HDFC Bank, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad for Rs.1,00,00,000/- in favour of the complainant, who is the Chief Executive Officer, towards part payment of his dues. Since the said cheque was dishonoured, the original complainant Dr. N. Satyanarayana as Chief Executive Officer of the company filed the complaint in the lower Court. While so, it is stated that Dr. N. Satyanarayana expired on 26.11.2008. It necessitated filing of Crl.M.P.No.756 of 2009 in the trial Court by Nagaiah Nadella, who is Director of the company, to substitute his name in the place of original deceased complainant. Both the Courts below allowed such substitution. Entertainment of this petition again under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would virtually amount to entertaining a second revision petition against a revisional order passed by the Sessions Court. At any rate, on examination of the complaint and the attending facts, this Court is of the view that substitution allowed by the Courts below is in accordance with law. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that Dr.N.Satynarayana filed the complaint in his individual capacity and verified the complaint in the same capacity and not representing the company. No doubt, the cheque in question was issued in the name of N. Satyanarayana without describing his designation in the company. But, averments in the original complaint disclose that the said cheque was received by N. Satyanarayana in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the company. He did not describe himself as a private individual in cause tile of the complaint in the trial Court. He did not also give his personal address in the cause title. He described himself as Chief Executive Officer of the company and gave office address of the company in the cause title. At no point, N. Satyanarayana posed as if he was filing the complaint in his individual capacity and having no reference to the company. Not only in cause title but also in contents of the complaint, N. Satyanarayana described himself as Chief Executive Officer and narrated the transaction as one with the company and issuance of cheque by the accused to him as Chief Executive Officer of the company. In the light of the said allegations, it cannot be said that Dr. N. Satyanarayana filed the complaint in the lower Court and verified the same in his individual capacity. With so many words and description and narration, Dr. N. Satyanarayana clearly disclosed the transaction as one relating to the company and his receiving the cheque as Chief Executive Officer of the company. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the case was filed by Dr.N. Satyanarayana in his individual capacity. For that reason, after death of Dr. N. Satyanarayana, a Director of the company, by name, Nagaiah Nadella intended to pursue the complaint on behalf of the company in the place of Dr. N. Satyanarayana. Having regard to all the allegations in the complaint, both in cause title as well as in contents, this Court does not find any legal error committed by the Courts below in allowing Nagaiah Nadella to substitute himself in the place of the deceased Chief Executive Officer of the company. Hence, the Petition is dismissed. ------------------------------------- (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J) 8th June 2010 ksld