1. Both the appeals are filed impugning the orders dated 29.07.2009 in Criminal Revision Petition Nos.90 and 91 of 2007 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. The Appellant and Respondents 1 and 2 are hereinafter called as Complainant and accused for the sake of convenience.

3. The facts in brief are that the Complainant filed C.C. Nos. 41 and 42 of 2005 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘the Act’) on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam alleging that the accused availed secured loan and over draft facility from the Complainant, that after disbursement of the said loan on overdraft, the accused issued cheques to discharge the respective dues and the same were dishonoured endorsing ‘funds insufficient’ on 06.08.2004 and 31.08.2004 respectively, that after issuing the statutory notice respectively the Complainant presented two complaints against both the accused. The cases were taken on file against both the accused under Section 138 of the Act and the accused were examined under Section 251 Cr. P.C, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. After examination of the witness P.W-1 on behalf of the complainant and after perusal of the respective documents marked on behalf of the complainant, since no documents marked on behalf of the accused nor examined any witness on behalf of the accused, the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam passed Judgments in both the cases on 18.09.2007 respectively holding that A-1 and A-2 found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Act and convicted them under Section 255(2) of Cr. P.C and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in both the cases respectively and also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively to the complainant.

4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the accused preferred criminal revision petitions before the learned II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Visakhapatnam contending that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and failed to note complainant’s failure to prove legally enforceable debt or liability and the complainant introduced the existence of promissory note and revival letter at the time of trial, that the learned Magistrate erred in holding inefficiency in drafting the complaint is not a ground to reject the case of the complainant. After hearing both sides and after perusal of the revision grounds with other material on record, the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam allowed the two revisions by setting aside the conviction Judgments of the trial Court dated 18.09.2007 in C.C. Nos.41 and 42 of 2005.

5. Against the said two revision reversal judgments the complainant presented the appeals contending that the revision Court below failed to note that the accused having borrowed secured over daft from the appellant bank by depositing title deeds of the house property and agreed to repay the loan amount with interest and executed necessary loan documents in favour of the complainant issued the cheques that were when presented dishonoured with a reason ‘funds insufficient’ for which the complainant issued legal notice, that the accused wantonly not claimed to receive the legal notice addressed to him which is evident from the postal returned cover with endorsement ‘not claimed’ which clearly establishes the fact of giving notice to the accused his failure to pay and ought to have confirmed the Judgment of the trial Court, that the revision Court below having noted the existence of legally enforceable debt especially when in the presence of promissory note and revival letters which are marked and the accused with an intention to discharge in part of the debt has issued the cheques, the complainant filed the pronote and revival letters and therefore t