(1.) MR . Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to urge any points which merits examination in a petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Prodecure, 1973, for short 'the Cr.P.C.) except to submit that the revision petitioners had repaid the amount borrowed by them from the respondent and the cheque had been issued only by way of security and not for actual repayment etc. The cheque is dated 5.5.1999 for a sum of Rs. 3,93,260,50 drawn in the name of M/s. Maharababa Borewells and on presentation by the drawee had been dishonoured by the drawee banker with the endorsement 'referred to drawer' etc.
(2.) THIS was the precise defence taken before the Trial Court by the revision petitioners and relied upon Ex.D1 a cash voucher dated 29.5.1999. the trial court did examine this defence, but found that such was not the response to the issue of cheque on behalf of the payee and did not accept the defence of the petitioners that in good hope and faith had not taken back the cheque from the complainant therein which according to the respondents therein had been issued by way of security.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by this conviction and imposition of fine the respondent accused had preferred an appeal before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 845/2009. The learned Past Track Judge, determined the following points for consideration : - 1. Whether the complainant has proved before the trial court that the cheque has been issued by the accused towards the discharge of legally recoverable debt? 2. Whether the order of the Trial Court is erroneous, requires interference? 3. What order ? and answered all points against the revision petitioners and in favor of the respondent - complainant and dismissed the appeal, against this appellate order the present criminal revision petition.