SHAIK AYAZ Vs. ABDUL KHADER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case came up for hearing on 28.09.2011. There was no representation for the petitioner and for the respondents. The case, consequently, was posted to next day for dismissal. On 29.09.2011, no one represented the first respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned representative of the Additional Public Prosecutor were present. This revision is, therefore, disposed of after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned representative of the Additional Public Prosecutor and without hearing the learned counsel for the first respondent.

(2.) The sole accused laid the revision.

(3.) The sole point is whether the accused is guilty of the offence u/s.138 of the Act. The basic contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that there was no legally enforceable debt in respect of which the cheques were issued and that Section 138 of the Act has, therefore, no application. In P. Narasimha Reddy v. D.L. Narasimha Rao, 2004 2 DCR 390, C.V. Ramulu, J has observed