Hon’ble Mr. M.S. Rajendra Prasad, J.—Both these revision petitions involve common question of law, parties in both the cases are common, common arguments have been advanced and hence, common Order is being passed.

2. Both revision petitions filed by the accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C., are directed against the Orders dated 26.11.2001 passed in C.C. Nos. 35574 and 35575 of 2001, respectively, on the file of the 16th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, wherein the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence, against the accused-revision petitioner, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, questioning the legality and propriety of the Order impugned.

3. The Court has heard the arguments of Mr. Sathyanarayana Chalke for M/s. Lex Nexus, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner and Mr. R.P Somashekaraiah, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

4. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the Orders impugned are illegal and improper. Patently, the cheques in question had been issued by the husband