Hon’ble Aditya Nath Mittal, J. : Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and the learned private counsel appearing for opposite party no.2.

2. This Criminal revision has been filed against order dated 12.7.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.9, District Jhansi, by which the application for discharge has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the alleged cheques were given upon the understanding that whenever the revisionist will get his payment from the Nagar Palika then he will repay the amount. It has also been submitted that the cheques were issued by way of collateral security therefore, the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is not made out.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that the accused has not denied that he had issued the alleged cheques which were dishonoured by the concerned Bank. It has also been submitted that in matters under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act there is no provision of discharge in summons cases therefore, the discharge application was not maintainable. It has also been submitted that previously the revisionist