1. The revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.1687/2005 as well as the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.1970/2005 is the accused in CC.No.315/2004 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alappuzha. (Hereinafter, he is referred as the petitioner). The first respondent in both proceedings is the complainant before the trial court. The first respondent in his complaint alleged that the petitioner issued three cheques, totally for a sum of Rs.11,08,474/-, in discharge of a liability arising out of a business transaction, whereby the petitioner purchased Glass bottles from the first respondent and that when presented for collection, the cheques were returned dishonoured with endorsement 'payment stopped by the drawer' and that there was no balance in the account of the petitioner and that though a notice demanding discharge of liability was caused, neither any reply was sent nor the liability was discharged. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process.

2. The petitioner, after accepting the process, filed a petition before this Court as Crl.M.C.No.2685/2004 seeking an order to quash the complaint in exercise of the powers conferred on this Court under Sec.482 of the Crl.P.C. with a plea that the bottles supplied by the first respondent when sent with medicinal products developed cracks and were of very poor quality and so the amount due to the first respondent was much lesser and in that circumstance, the petitioner directed his bank to stop payment and that there was sufficient amount in his account to honour the cheques, when presented for collection, and that the transaction between the petitioner and the first respondent is purely a civil one and the dispute is of a civil nature and to be disposed accordingly and that no offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was constituted.

3. While disposing Crl.M.C.No.2685/2004, this Court issued the following directions:

(i) If an application is filed by the petitioner to exempt him from personal appearance in court, the learned Magistrate shall consider the application on its merits and appropriate orders on the same shall be passed in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the complainant also.

(ii) The petitioner may file an application pleading for a discharge with specific reference to the contention of the petitioner that the ingredients of the offence have not been made out in the complaint. His plea that stop memo was issued for valid reasons can also be considered by the learned Magistrate. If such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, seeking an order to exempt the petitioner from personal appearance, a petition as Crl.M.P.No.5555 of 2004 was filed. By order dated 23.4.005 that petition was dismissed. Assailing the said order Crl.M.C.No.1970 of 2005 was preferred.

4. Another petition as Crl.M.P.No.355 of 2005 was filed seeking an order of discharge. By order dated 23.4.2005 the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of that order, the revision petition was filed. Crl.R.P.No.1687/2005.

5. The fact that the petitioner issued three cheques in discharge of the liability out of business transaction is, in fact, not disputed. But the contention advanced is that, when the glass bottles supplied by the 2nd respondent were despatched with medicinal products the bottles were found leaking and developed cracks and that the glass bottles supplied were of inferior quality and hence that much amount covered by the cheques were not due to the first respondent and in that circumstances the petitioner issued stop memo to the Bank and that the cheques were dishonoured by the Bank only on the basis of the issuance of the stop memo with good reasons and not for want of sufficient funds to honour the cheques.

6. It is crucial to note that before launching the prosecution, the first respondent had complied with