Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, these petitions are heard and disposed of by this Court by a common order.

2. The petitioner and respondents are one and the same and the revision petitioner in both the cases challenges the order of conviction passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangalore and confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore.

3. For the sake of convenience and also to avoid repetition of facts, both petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order.

4. The petitioner in both the cases is an accused in C.C. Nos. 60 and 61 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class-V, Mangalore. The Trial Court after considering the materials placed on record by both the parties convicted the revision petitioner in both the cases directed him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- in each case within a period of three months. In default of payment of compensation, she shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 30 days and the said order of conviction and sentence passed in both the cases by the V Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mangalore have been challenged in Criminal Appeal Nos. 48 and 49 of 2006 before the Principle Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore and after re-appreciation of the entire evidence placed on record, both the criminal appeals came to be dismissed.

5. Assailing the same, she has come up with these revision petitions mainly on the ground that inspite of the letter issued by the petitioner in both the cases not to present the cheque, both the cheques were presented for encashment. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed any offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and that those cheques have been presented contrary to the terms and compromise memo. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Courts below are illegal and she has produced the receipts to show that the transaction with the respondents in the Courts below have not been taken into consideration. Apart from that, the respondent has also filed a suit in respect of nine cheques and obtained decree. Immovable properties of the petitioners were attached and the complainant initiated execution proceedings and the properties were brought for attachment and sale. This fact has not been considered by the Courts below and came to the wrong conclusion and those two cheques were issued as a security for withdrawal of civil suit but the complainant has not withdrawn the civil suits. Hence, both the revision petitions.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel Sri. S. Vishwajith Shetty for the revision petitioner and Sri K.M. Nataraj for the respondents in both cases.

7. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner in both the cases submitted that earlier the petitioner had issued nine cheques for rupees one lakh each. The respondent has filed nine complaints against the revision petitioner for bouncing of the said cheques. During the pendency of the criminal cases filed against her, compromise was entered into and the said cases were withdrawn by the respondent on the ground that the revision petitioner had issued two cheques for Rs. 6,00,000/- each, in all, amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/-. Since the respondent has not complied the terms of the joint memo filed in the earlier nine criminal cases, unless the respondent files a joint memo in O.S. No. 16 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Mangalore, she is not obliged to pay the amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- and the two cheques issued as security but the Trial Court as well as the learned Sessions Judge have not considered this fact. It is further argued that apart from filing nine cases, the respondent had already obtained decrees in O.S. No. 346 of 1997 and execution proceedings has been initiated ag