HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.802 OF 2004 Date: 04-07-2011 Between: M/s. Gold Stone Tele Services Ltd., Having its registered office at 9-1-83/84, Amarchand Sharma Complex, S.D. Road, Secunderabad, Rep. by its authorized signatory, Sri P.V.S.Sarma, S/o.Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, Aged 60 Years. - - - Petitioner/ Complainant. Versus 1. Sri Abdul Fazala Alavi. 2. The State of A.P., Rep. By its Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondents/ Accused. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.802 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 31-03-2004 of the learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in Crl.M.P. No.861 of 2004 in C.C. No.1654 of 2003, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the first respondent/A-2 of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’) in respect of cheque bearing No.584552, dated 21-07-2003 for a sum of Rs.32,83,000/-. 2. The facts which led to the filing of the Criminal Revision Case are as follows : The complainant company entered into a contract with the first respondent/A-2, pursuant to which, the first respondent issued two post dated cheques bearing Nos.584552 and 584553, dated 21-07-2003 and 21-08-2003 for a sum of Rs.32,83,000/- each, to the complainant. When the complainant presented the cheque bearing No.584552 before the concerned bank, it was dishonoured on 31-07-2003 for ‘insufficiency of funds’. Hence, the complainant issued a notice dated 21-08-2003 under Section 138 of the Act to pay the amount covered by that and also requested the respondent/A-2 to arrange the amount due under the other cheque bearing No.584553. Thereafter, the complainant presented both the cheques before the concerned bank, but then also the said cheques were dishonoured. Then the complainant issued a notice under Section 138 of the Act to the first respondent/A-2, as per law, but it was not complied with. Hence, the complainant filed a private complaint against the first respondent/A-2 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of I.P.C. and the same was registered as C.C. No.1654 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. In that Calender Case the first respondent/A-2 filed Crl.M.P. No.861 of 2004 seeking to discharge him from the charges levelled against him, which was contested by the revision petitioner/complainant. 3. Taking into consideration, the material available on record, it was observed by the lower Court that in the notice dated 21-08-2003, given to the first respondent/A-1 it was mentioned that a cheque bearing No.584552 was dishonoured and it was requested to make arrangements to pay the amount covered by the other cheque and therefore the first cheque bearing No.584552 was only valid and the second cheque was not valid, but, ultimately, it was held that the first respondent/A-2 was discharged in respect of the cause of action arising out of the cheque bearing No.584553 was concerned, whereas aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been preferred. 4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the revision petitioner that in the notice dated 21-08-2003, it was only noted that the cheque bearing No.584552, dated 31-07-2003 was dishonoured and requested to make arrangements for the payment of the amount covered by the other cheque and subsequently, both the cheques were presented before the concerned bank once again, but, then also, the two cheques were dishonoured, following which, the second notice was issued under Section 138 of the Act complying with necessary requirements. It is her further contention that the lower Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and erred in discharging the first respondent/A-2 of the charge levelled against him and hence, the order passed by the lower Court is not tenable. 5. The point for consideration is whether there are sufficient grounds to discharge the respondent/A-1 from the charges levelled 201 against him in respect of the cheques? 6. POINT: It is pertinent to note here that the lower Court having observed that the cheque bearing No.584552 was valid, ultimately discharged the respondent/A-2 with regard to the corresponding charge with reference to the second cheque, which is not tenable. Further when both the cheques were dishonoured and necessary notices were issued, the lower Court should have considered all those circumstances while examining the matter. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order in question is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Court to examine all the relevant circumstances and dispose of the matter afresh independently. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 04h July, 2011. Dsh THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.802 OF 2004 July, 04, 2011 DSH