1. All the three criminal revision cases arise out of Crl. R.P. Nos. 268 and 269 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge by his order dated 5.11.1991 allowed both the Crl. Petitions setting aside the order of the learned XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in C.C. No.157 of 1989 and held that the XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad has no jurisdiction to try the case. Originally, on a complaint filed against the accused, the learned XXI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad held that the Court at Hyderabad has got jurisdiction to try the case.

2. Crl. R.C. No. 12 of 1992 is preferred by the learned Public Prosecutor while Crl. R.C. Nos. 44 and 45 of 1992 are filed by the de facto complainant.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the above criminal revision cases are, in brief, as follows: A-1 is the firm known as M/s. Tadikonda Ramulu and A-2 to A-4 are the partners of the said firm having equal shares and they are the wholesale dealers for the distribution of cigarettes manufactured by the complainant for Vijayawada and Guntur. The delivery of the cigarattes has to be taken from t