THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.342 OF 2011 DATED:22.07.2011 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 25.10.2010, in Crl.M.P.No.1218 of 2010 in C.C.No.317 of 2009 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Sections 88 and 204 Cr.P.C., seeking an order that the petitioners-A1 and A2 need not furnish any surety, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent. None appeared for the 1st respondent. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners herein are facing prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.317 of 2009 registered on the basis of a private complaint by the 1st respondent herein. The trial Court in exercise of the powers under Section 88 of Cr.P.C., directed the petitioners-A1 and A2 to execute bonds for their appearance along with surety. The said order has not been challenged by the petitioners-A1 and A2. Without complying with the said order, which remained unchallenged, petitioners have chosen to file Crl.M.P.No.1218 of 2010 seeking a direction that they need not furnish surety. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been regularly appearing before the Court below and therefore there is no necessity for them to furnish sureties for their appearance and they are prepared to execute personal bonds. 5. The earlier order, directing the petitioners to execute bonds along with sureties, remained unchallenged and has become final. When that is so, the present application filed by the petitioners, seeking a direction that they need not furnish sureties is virtually in the nature of seeking review of the earlier order, which is not permissible under law. It is not disputed that the criminal Court does not have any powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure to review its order. Crl.M.P.No.1218 of 2010 is therefore misconceived. Dismissal of the said petition by the trial Court does not therefore call for any interference by this Court. 6. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd July, 2011. Tsy