K.C. Bhanu, J. - (1.) This criminal revision case is directed against the order, dated 8-11-2002, in Crl. M.P. No. 8057/2002 in C.C. No. 641/1999 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioners to discharge them for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the Act').
(2.) The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision case are that the 1st respondent-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioners alleging that the accused and the complainant entered into a memorandum of understanding in respect of export of castor oil derivatives, that the accused committed default in fulfilling the terms of the M.O.U. as there were discrepancies in the documents of shipping, that the goods shipped were of inferior quality which resulted in the rejection of the material by the buyer, that in view of the defaults committed by the accused in the matter of handing export, three cheques for a total value of Rs. 20 lakhs were given to the complainant as security on 17-11-1998, that in the month of January, 1999 the accused pleaded cash crunch and issued seven cheques for a total sum of Rs. 18 lakhs in lieu of the cheques given earlier, that when the amounts payable by the accused had further gone up he issued cheques which are the subject matter of the complaint, that when they were presented in the bank, they were returned for insufficiency of funds, and that the complainant issued a legal notice to the accused who managed to evade receipt of the legal notice and, therefore, the complainant filed the complaint before the trial Court. The accused filed a petition seeking to discharge them from the main case, as the averments in the complaint did not disclose the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that some disputed questions of fact and mixed questions of fact and law have to be decided in a full-fledged trial. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said petition, the accused filed the present revision case questioning the legality and correctness of the order of the trial Court.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the cheques were given as security and that there was no existing liability or debt and, therefore, prima facie, the ingredients under Section 138 of the Act are not made out and, hence, he prays to allow the revision and discharge the accused. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the cheques were given in pursuance of the memo of understanding and, therefore, he prays to dismiss the criminal revision case. Both sides relied upon some decisions, which will be referred at appropriate places.;