J. ESWARA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THE array of parties is the same in both the cases. The petitioner is accused of the offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in C. C. No. 95/91 in the Court of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The second respondent laid complaints against the petitioner in C. C. Nos. 95/91 and 169/91 in the aforesaid Court alleging that the petitioner issued seventeen post-dated cheques in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties towards recovery of rents due from the petitioner. In No. 95/91 the complainant presented the cheque dated 20-4-91 for encashment and it was returned twice by the bank on 23-4-91 and 3-6-91 with the endorsement refer to drawer . The second cheque dated 25-4-91 was also returned once and was presented on 3-6-91 again, which was also returned with the endorsement insufficient funds . The third cheque dated 4-5-91 was also dishonored twice on 7-5-91 and 3-6-91 with the same endorsement. The complainant alleges that the cheques were presented after giving due prior notice by the letter dated 28-5-91 to the petitioner, who paid a sum of Rs. 4,000. 00 and was still liable to pay the balance. The complainant issued

Click Here to Read the rest of this document