These two revisions arise out of the orders of the learned XIX-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 19-08-2013, made in Crl.M.P.Nos.1441 and 1442 of 2013 in C.C.No.815 of 2012.

2. Crl.M.P.No.1441 of 2013 was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., to recall the complainant/PW.1 whereas Crl.M.P.No.1442 of 2013 was filed under Section 91(1)(2) of Cr.P.C., seeking to summon the documents which were marked in another C.C.No.814 of 2012 and to mark the same in the present Calendar Case viz., C.C.No.815 of 2012. Both the petitions were dismissed.

3. The petitioner is the complainant and respondents No.2 and 3 are shown as A.1 and A.2 in C.C.No.815 of 2012. The very same complainant filed another Calendar Case bearing C.C.No.814 of 2012 against the same accused. Both the Calendar Cases are on the file of the learned XIX-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. These two cases are filed alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable InstrumentsAct, and trial in both the Calendar Cases have been concluded and at the stage of arguments, these two petitions are filed in the present Calendar Case and similar petitions are also filed in C.C.No.814 of 2012. The contention of the complainant as well as the defence of the respondents/accused in both the Calendar Cases is one and the same.

4. According to the complainant, in between the complainant and the accused, there were certain dealings in procurement of lands and the 2nd respondent/accused Company has appointed the complainant as General Manager of the Company. It is claimed that the complainant arranged several lands with his efforts and got entered into sale agreements after paying sale amounts/advances in terms of the understanding and after procurement of the lands, the 2nd respondent/accused Company gave Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) to the complainant towards his remuneration for the services rendered by him for procuring the lands and incidental expenditure. It is further alleged that the 2nd respondent/accused Company has issued two cheques for Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) each drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Nakkapalle Branch, Visakhapatnam District. One cheque was bearing No.021192, dated 22-12-2011 and another cheque was bearing No.021278, dated 06-01-2012. Both the cheques were presented by the complainant for encashment and both the cheques returned with an endorsement account blocked. Thereafter, the complainant issued the statutory legal notices for dishonour of both the cheques on 07-01-2012 which were received by the respondents on 09-01-2012. A.1 gave a reply on 18-01-2012 contending that the complainant has stolen the signed blank cheques bearing Nos.021192 and 021278 and filed the complaints.

5. In respect of cheque bearing No.021278, dated 06-01-2012, the complainant originally filed C.C.No.396 of 2012 on the file of the XIV-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

6. In respect of another cheque bearing No.021192, dated 22-12-2011, the complainant originally filed C.C.No.358 of 2012 on the file of the XIV-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

7. Subsequently, the above two Calendar Cases were transferred to the Court of the XIX-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, where they were re-numbered as C.C.Nos.814/2012 and 815/2012 respectively. Since both the Calendar Cases were in between the same parties and the subject matter was identical, apparently, both the cases were being called simultaneously. On 01-03-2012, the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded. Thereafter, the cognizance of the case was taken. The accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., where the accusations were put to them and they denied the same. Till this stage, viz., recording the sworn statement, taking cognizance and examination of the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C., everything was in order. In C.C.No.814 of 2012 the following question was put to both the responde