GIRIJA Vs. K VINAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these revision petitions involve common question of law, parties in both the cases are common, common arguments have been advanced and hence, common order is being passed.

(2.) BOTH revision petitions filed by the accused under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr. P. C. , are directed against the orders dated 26-11-2001 passed in C. C. Nos. 35574/2001 and 35575/2001, respectively, on the file of the 16th Addl. , Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, wherein the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, against the accused revision petitioner, under Section 138 of the negotiable Instrument Act, questioning the legality and propriety of the order impugned.

(3.) THE Court has heard the arguments of Sri Sathayanarayana chalke, for M/s Lex Nexus, learned Counsel appearing on behlf of the revision petitioner and Sri R. P. Somashekaraiah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.