( 1 ) THESE revision cases are connected. Hence, they are disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 267 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in Crl. M. P. No. 3567 of 1998 in C. C. No. 506 of 1997 on the file of XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

( 3 ) CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 268 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in Criminal M. P. No. 3829 of 1998 in C. C. No. 18 of 1998 on the file of the same Magistrate.

( 4 ) CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 269 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in Criminal M. P. No. 383 of 1998 in CC No. 19 of 1998 on the file of the same Magistrate.

( 5 ) CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 270 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in Criminal M. P. No. 3563 of 1998 in C. C. No. 189 of 1998 on the file of the same Magistrate.

( 6 ) CRIMINAL Revision Case No. 271 of 1999 is filed against the order passed in Criminal M. P. No. 3566 of 1998 in CC No. 491 of 1998 on the file of the same Magistrate.

( 7 ) IN all these Revision Case the petitioners are A2 to A6.

( 8 ) THE complaint is filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the cheques issued by the Director of the Company were dishonoured.

( 9 ) IN Criminal R. C. No. 267/99 two cheques were issued by A1 Company and they are dated 1-4-1997 and 1-5-1997 and when they were presented to the bank, the bank made an endorsement on 20-5-1997 payment Stopped by Drawer . The complainant issued notice as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 20-6-1997.

( 10 ) IN Criminal Revision Case No. 268 of 1999 two cheques were issued by A1-Company dated 1-9-1997 and 1-10-1997. The Bank made an endorsement on 13-10-1997 payment stopped by drawer and this was communicated to the complainant on 20-10-1997. Thereupon the complainant issued notice as required under Section 138 of the Act on 24-10-1997.

( 11 ) IN Criminal Revision Case No. 269/99 three cheques were issued by A-1 Company and they are dated 1-6-1997, 1-7-1997 and 1-8-1997. The Bank made an endorsement saying that payment stopped by drawer on 8-10-1997. The cheques were returned by the banker to the complainant on 20-10-1997. Notice under Section 138 of the Act was given on 24-10-1997.

( 12 ) IN Criminal Revision Case No. 270 of 1999 two cheques were issued by A1 Company and they are dated 1-11-1997 and 1-12-1997. The bankers endorsement dated 8-12-1997 was suit filed account and the bankers memo is dated 15-12-1997. The complainant issued notice under Section 138 of the Act on 23-12-1997.

( 13 ) IN Criminal Revision Case No. 271 of 1999 three cheques were issued by A1-Company and they are dated 1-1-1998, 1-2-1998 and 1-3-1998. The Bank made an endorsement payment stopped by the drawer dated 14-3-1998. The cheques were returned with a bankers memo to the complainant on 21-3-1998. Notice under Section 138 of the Act was given on 2-4-1998.

( 14 ) THE main contention of the petitioners is that by the time the offence was alleged to have been committed the petitioners who are accused 2 to 6 were no longer the directors of the A-1 Company. A2 ceased to be Managing Director by resignation with effect from 3-3-1997, A3 ceased to be Director by resignation with effect from 20-5-1996, A4 ceased to be Director by resignation with effect from 31-3-1997, A5 ceased to be Director by resignation with effect from 20-4-1995 and A6 ceased to be Director by resignation with effect from 1-10-1996. Therefore, they filed a petition to discharge.

( 15 ) THE lower Court after considering the provisions of Chapter 20 held that there is no provision under which the petition could be filed and after discussing the case on merits dismissed the petitions. Hence, the present revisions are filed.

( 16 ) MR. E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Magistrate was wrong in dismissing the petitions on the ground that there is no specific provisions under summon proceedings to order discharge. In supp