COMMON ORDER:

The petitioner in both the revision cases is one and the same person and similarly, the respondent in both the cases is also the same person.

2. The petitioner filed two complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent herein and both the complaints were taken on file in STR.Nos.9689/1999 and 9688/1999 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pondicherry.

3. The respondent/accused filed two petitions in Crl.M.P.No.423/2003 and Crl.M.P.No.422/2003 respectively under Sections 245 and 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for discharge and they were opposed by filing counter. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pondicherry, by common order, dated 7.8.2003, allowed the petitions and discharged the respondent herein of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in terms of Section 245 Cr.P.C. Challenging that order, the complainant has preferred these revisions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitions for discharge, purportedly filed under Section 245 and 203 Cr.P.C, are prima facie not maintainable under law and the trial Court has grossly erred in discharging the accused by looking in