(1) In both these revisions, the complainant and the accused are same. Both these Criminal revision Cases relate to a cheque bearing no. 412223, dated 5-9-2004 issued by the accused. Therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of this Common judgment.

(2) BACKGROUND facts in a nutshell leading to filing of both these Criminal Revision Cases by the accused in C. C. Nos. 711 of 2006 and 35 of 2007 on the file of VII Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad, are:

(a) Accused D. Atchyutha Reddy is a film producer and director. According to the complainant N. Ratan Babu, he and accused got acquaintance with each other for the past several years and they were family friends. The complainant contends that the accused borrowed Rs. 2. 50 lakhs on 5-4-2003 in the presence of one M. Dayakar, who is known to both of them. The accused after receiving the amount issued a postdated cheque for rs. 2. 50 lakhs. The cheque is dated 5-9-2004. He presented the cheque in Andhra Bank, saifabad Branch, for collection and the same came to be returned with an endorsement 'accused closed'. The complainant issued a notice under Section 138 (b) of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881, (for short, 'the N. I. Act')to the accused to make good the amount covered under the cheque in question. The accused received the notice, but he did not respond. The accused stated to have closed the account on 24-1-2003 i. e. , much earlierto the issuance of the cheque. Ex. P-1 is the cheque. Ex. P-2 is the cheque return memo. Ex. P-3 is the office copy of the notice and ex. P-4 is the acknowledgment. The complainant filed the complaint on 5-11-2004 before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, under Sections 190 and 200 cr. P. C. forthe offence under Section 420 IPC. The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, after recording the sworn statement of the complaint, took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC registering the case as C. C. No. 35 of 2007.

(b) On appearance of the accused and on furnishing copies of documents, the learned magistrate examined the accused under section 251 Cr. P. C. in cheque bouncing case and under Section 239 Cr. P. C. in cheating case. The accused denied the accusations leveled against him and pleaded not guilty for the offences under Sections 138 of the N. I. Act and 420 IPC.

(c) In both the cases, the complainant examined himself as P. W. 1 and examined two more witnesses viz. , M. Dayakar and alapati Trinadha Rao as P. Ws. 2 and 3. P. W. 2 M. Dayakar claims to be present on the date of borrowing and also on the date on which the cheque in question came to be issued by the accused. N. Rajesh Babu, who is the son of the complainant is stated to have filled the contents of the cheque. According to the complainant, the accused read the contents of the cheque and confirmed the contents therein as correct and signed thereon and handed overthe same to him with instructions to deposit the cheque on the date mentioned thereon.

(d) P. W. 3 is the Deputy Bank Manager of andhra bank, Nampally Branch, wherein the accused maintained the account bearing no. ASB 500009. According to him, the accused closed the account on 24-1-2003. Whereas, the complainant/p. W. 1 presented ex. P-1 cheque after the closure of the account. Ex. P-2 is the cheque return memo. Ex. P-5 is the copy of bank statement of account of the accused in respect of Account bearing no. ASB 500009.

(e) It is the plea of the accused that the complainant took blank undated promissory notes and cheques and made use of the blank promissory notes and chequesand filed various suits against him by the complainant, his wife-Rajeswari and his son-Rajesh Babu and that there did not exist the relationship of creditor and debtor between him and the complainant. Except marking Certified copy of the complaint in C. C. No. 35 of 2007 as Ex. D-1,which is filed by the complainant, he did not choose to adduce any evidence.

(f) The learned