IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of procedural provisions such as Sec. 254 CrPC and Sec. 311 CrPC in ensuring a fair trial and a just decision.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri Jangam Varun Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused; Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant and Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor representing for respondent No.1/State.

2. This criminal petition is filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "CrPC") to quash the Order, dtd. 30/12/2019 rendered by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nellore in Criminal Revision Petition No.51 of 2019.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Order of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Petition No.51 of 2019, dtd. 30/12/2019 was perverse and against the facts of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant would submit that the complainant in the complaint itself has taken specific plea that the complainant"s younger brother Dontamsetty Srinivas Kumar and the complainant are members of joint family and the accused availed loan from the joint family and executed promissory notes in favour of the complainant"s younger brother and to discharge the same, accused issued cheque in favour of the complainant and the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused and therefore, the complaint was filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity "the Act") and the case is at the stage of complainant"s evidence and therefore, the complainant produced the promissory notes executed by the accused in favour of the complainant"s younger brother to establish the fact that there was a legally enforceable debt and in the said circumstances, the impugned Order of the learned Sessions Judge is sustainable in law.

5. Now the point that arises for determination is:

"Whether the impugned Order, dtd. 30/12/2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nellore in Criminal Revision Petition No.51 of 2019 suffers from any error, illegality, impropriety and irregularity requiring this Court to quash the same?"

6. P O I N T:

The complaint in the case was filed by the respondent No.2/defacto-complainant for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Act, alleging that there were business transactions between the accused and complainant"s younger brother and also with the complainant and the accused obtained a loan of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 from the complainant"s younger brother and executed two (02) promissory notes for a sum of Rs.2, 50, 000.00 each and later, the accused issued a cheque on 28/9/2016 for a sum of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 drawn on Union Bank of India in the name of complainant for discharging the amount due under the promissory notes executed in favour of the complainant younger brother, who are members of the joint family and the cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and therefore, after complying the requirements as laid down under Sec. 138 of the Act, the complainant filed the case before the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Act.

7. In the light of above rival contentions Chapter XX, Sec. 254 CrPC which deals with the procedure when accused is not convicted either under Sec. 252 CrPC or 253 CrPC in a summons case triable by Magistrates is relevant. It is extracted as under:

Sec. 254: Procedure when not convicted.

(1) If the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Sec. 252 or Sec. 253, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence.

(2) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

(3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on such application require that the reasonable expenses of the witness incurred in attending f