THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL R.C. NOS.1346 AND 1347 OF 2000 COMMON ORDER: 1 Since the issue involved in both the revisions is one and the same, these two revision cases are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2 The petitioner herein filed private complaint before the court below against the respondents 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’) stating that the cheques that have been issued by them, on presentation were dishonoured and as such the respondents committed the said offence. 3 On notice the respondents have put in their appearance and contested the matter and after a full fledged trial, the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad came to the conclusion that the respondents are guilty of the said offence and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. 4 As the cheque amount in both the cases is Rs.2,00,000/- and the said sentence of imposing only a fine of Rs.5,000/- is inadequate, the complainant approached this court and filed the present revisions. 5 This court, while ordering notice before admission, permitted the counsel for the petitioner to take out personal notice to the respondents 1 and 2 by registered post and file proof establishing the fact that the notices are served. Though several opportunities were given to the counsel for the petitioner and though the petitioner sent notices to the respondents, but the notices could not be served on the respondents. In the light of the said non service, this court permitted the counsel for the petitioner to take out substitute service and accordingly the counsel for the petitioner took out substitute service and got the notices published in Deccan Chronicle local edition. Despite the said fact the respondents have not chosen to put in their appearance and as such this court issued bailable warrants of arrest against the respondents 1 and 2. Though the bailable warrants have been issued, the respondents could not be apprehended and as such this court ordered proclamation as provided for under section 82 CPC and accordingly the proclamation was published in Vaartha daily of the local edition. Despite the said proclamation as none appeared for the respondents this court further passed an order declaring the respondents as proclaimed offenders and the counsel for the petitioner was directed to furnish the details of the properties of the respondents 1 and 2 so that this court can pass appropriate orders. Though sufficient time and opportunity has been give to the petitioner as well as to his counsel, they could not furnish the details of the properties of the respondents 1 and 2. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner expressed his inability to give the particulars of the properties of the respondents 1 and 2. 6 In that view of the matter, this court is helpless to pass any orders and accordingly these two revision cases are dismissed. -------------- 01.06.2010 kvsn