IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1256 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Chennam Ravindra Babu S/o. Sheshagirirao …. Petitioner AND State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor and another …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1256 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner / accused filed the present petition in the lower Court for discharging him in a case relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Even though the case pending in the lower Court is one in which procedure relating to summons case has to be followed, the petitioner filed the present petition in the lower Court under Section 239 Cr.P.C., which occurs in procedure relating to trial of warrant cases. 2. It is contention of the petitioner / accused that when he was a successful bidder in the private unregistered chit being run by the second respondent / complainant, the second respondent obtained blank promissory note and blank cheque with signatures of the petitioner and that the petitioner paid away all the installments in the chit amount and in spite of it, the second respondent did not return the promissory note and the cheque and misused them in filing the present case against him. 3. All the contentions raised by the petitioner / accused are questions of fact, which have to be proved by him during the course of trial in the lower Court by adducing acceptable evidence on his behalf. The said questions / contentions, raised by the petitioner / accused, cannot be decided in a discharge petition filed in the lower Court or in this criminal revision petition. The lower Court rightly dismissed the petition. I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower Court. 4. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J July 12, 2010 KTL