( 1 ) THESE revisions are connected. Therefore, they are disposed of by common judgment.

( 2 ) THE complainant is the father of one B. Kalpana who is having a promissory note in her favour for the amount she advanced to the accused. She endorsed on the promissory note to collect the contents of the promissory note. Thereupon, the complainant issued statutory notice to the accused. The accused issued cheques for the amount claimed. When the cheques were presented, they bounced and thereupon after the statutory period the criminal complaint against the accused was filed. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of negotiable Instruments Act, and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, in each case. On appeal, the judgments and the sentences were confirmed.

( 3 ) HENCE, the revisions.

( 4 ) MR. M. Chandrasekhar Rao, appearing for the petitioner/accused in both the revisions submitted that the complainant has no locus-standi to file the complaint. It is true that he is admittedly a payee under the two cheques, but there is no enforceable debt as far as the petitioner and the payee are concerned. Therefore, the essential ingredients of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, are not made out by the complainant and the revisions are to be allowed. He also submitted that by the endorsement, the complainant becomes holder. A holder cannot entertain any complaint. As per section 138 of the Act, the words "any amount of money to any person" appearing in the main enacting clause are not defined and a mere holder or an endorsee without consideration cannot maintain the action.

( 5 ) IN support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Bench Judgment of this Court in b. Mohan Krishna v. Union of India and others, 1995 (1) ALD 393 (DB ). In that case, the Bench held as follows:"57. Section 138 is not couched in precise language. Apart from being vague, it is likely to be mis-interpreted in a manner different from what was intended by the law making body, and this is because of the words payment of any amount of money to another person : appearing in the main enacting clause. The words another person are not explained. This at the first blush gives an incorrect impression that the words another person mean only a payee and that the sweep of the offence is confined to the drawer and the payee. We, therefore, hold that both the payee and holder in due course are covered by the expression another person but not a mere holder or endorsee without consideration. "the Bench of this Court is specific that a mere holder or endorsee without consideration cannot come within the purview of the words another person . Action can be maintained only by a payee or a holder or a holder in due course and no other person.

( 6 ) REFERRING to the above paragraph, Mr. Chandra Sekhar Rao, submitted that the complainant in this case is a mere holder. Though he is a payee he is a payee without consideration. The consideration is only due to his daughter. He is the holder without consideration. In other words, he is an endorsee without consideration. Therefore, the ratio of the Bench judgment cited above squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of this case and the complainant cannot be clothed with the authority to file the complaint.

( 7 ) AT the first sight, the submission is quite feasible. But there is a twist in this case. The complainant is not a mere holder. It is true that he is the endorsee without consideration. But the endorsement here is "to collect". That endorsement clothes the complainant with the authority to issue notice and realise the amount by filing civil suit and also criminal complaint. Therefore, the ratio of the Bench judgment cannot squarely be applied to the facts of this case.