( 1 ) HEARD Mr A. Sndershan Reddy and Ms. Monica Pole, learned Counsel representing the respective parties and also the Additional Publie prosecutor.

( 2 ) IN both these criminal petitions, petitioners and respondents are the same.

( 3 ) THE complainant filed C. C. Nos. 1293 and 1294 of 2000 on the file of xxiii Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal courts, Hyderabad against the petitioners herein under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience. The allegations made in these complaints are to the effect that the cheques given by the petitioners were bounced. It is also stated that the first respondent-complainant had alleged that these cheques were given for the liability of m/s. Sujana Corporation and M/s. Sujana corporation is a sister concern of the petitioner-Company It is further stated that in the entire complaint, there is no averment regarding the liability and it is also stated that the petitioner-Company is no-way concerned with M/s. Sujana Corporation limited and hence the complaints and the proceedings in C. C. Nos. 1293 and 1294 of 2000 are liable to be quashed.

( 4 ) SRI Sudershan Reddy, learned counsel representing the petitioners with all emphasis had submitted that here is a case where the allegations in the complaints do not disclose any liability at all and there is no question of presuming any liability under the provisions of the Act and in such a case, these complaints under Section 138 of the act arc not maintainable and the same are liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel had placed strong reliance on the decisions reported in U. Mallikariun v. R. Vimala, 1997 (2) ALT (Crl.) 342, and in Mohana Krishna v Union of India, 1995 (1) ALT 468.

( 5 ) ON the contrary, Ms. Monika Pole, learned Counsel on behalf of Mr. Milind g. Gokhale representing the first respondent had contended that the question relating to the liability or the absence of liability may not be of any consequence at all and these are questions of fact to be decided at the time of trial and these questions need not be taken into consideration while deciding a criminal petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as "code" for short for the purpose of convenience. Learned Counsel while further elaborating her arguments had also drawn the attention to the decisions reported in M/s. MMTC Ltd. , v. Medchi Chemical and pharma Chemicals Private Ltd. , AIR 2002 sc 182 and in ATV Projects India Ltd. , mumbai v. Nagarjuna Finance Ltd, 2002 (1) ALD (Crl.) 364.

( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel.

( 7 ) I have perused the complaints filed in both these matters. It may be appropriate to have a look at the allegations made in para 4 of the complaint, which reads as hereunder: it is submitted that the complainant has received the Bank Return Memo of the bankers of Complainant dated 18. 9. 1999 along with the Memo of the Bankers of the accused dated 16. 9. 99 and after coming to the knowledge of the complainant that the cheques were bounced due to insufficient funds immediately approached the Accused 1 and 2 as they have agreed to repay the outstanding due by their sister concern i. e. , m/s. Liberty Corporation Limited formerly known as Ms. Sujana Corporation and issued the present cheque promising that the cheques would be honoured when presented; and informed that the cheques had been bounced and requested them to repay the amount of the contents of the cheque to avoid further legal complications. The accused neither responded to the request of the complainant nor complied with the request made by the complainant. Finally, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 28. 9. 1999 under Section 138 of N. I. Act to the accused herein and the accused have received the said notice vide acknowledgments dated 6. 10. 1999 but till date the accused neither complied with the notice nor replied to the said legal notice. As such the