JUDGMENT : 1. - The accused petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 22.03.2011 passed by the trial court in Cr. Regular Case No. 3431/2010 by which an application filed on behalf of the accused petitioners was dismissed. 2. The brief relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that the complainant non-petitioner filed a criminal complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused petitioners before the trial court and on behalf of them an application was filed on 15.03.2011 with a prayer that the complaint filed by the complainant non-petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the grounds stated in the application. The first ground taken by the accused petitioners in this application was that in the light of the view expressed by the Supreme Court in the case reported in : AIR 2010 SC 1907 Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal H, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant non-petitioner has also filed some other complaints for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused petitioners in other courts and although all these complaints relate to the same transaction the non-petitioner has not filed any affidavit and thus he has not complied the mandate given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The other ground taken in the application was that the complainant non petitioner has not filed the list of witnesses and thus the learned trial court has committed illegality in issuing process to the accused petitioners. 3. The complainant non-petitioner did not file written reply to the application and the learned trial court after hearing the parties, dismissed the application by passing impugned order. Feeling aggrieved, the accused petitioners by means of this revision petition have challenged the impugned order. 4. The learned trial court in the impugned order has held that the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case due to the reason that it is not revealed that the different complaints filed on behalf of the complainant non-petitioner relate to the same transaction. 4. The learned trial court in the impugned order has held that the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case due to the reason that it is not revealed that the different complaints filed on behalf of the complainant non-petitioner relate to the same transaction. The learned trial court on the basis of the facts available on the record came to the conclusion that the various complaints which have been filed by the complainant non-petitioner in different courts relate to different transactions and the several cheques were issued by the accused petitioners for different bills. The learned trial court has also held that in compliance of the order of cognizance, in the complainant non-petitioner filed list of witnesses with process fees and after that trial court has issued process to summon the accused petitioners. The learned trial court rejected this contention of the accused petitioners, that the trial court issued process although the complainant has not filed list of witnesses. 5. The learned counsel for the accused petitioners has submitted that the learned trial court has not properly considered the observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case and has wrongly held that the various complaints filed on behalf of the complainant non-petitioner in different courts do not relate to the same transaction. The learned counsel has also submitted that it is essential that the list of witnesses should be filed alongwith the complaint and it is an admitted fact that no list of witnesses was filed alongwith the complaint, thus the trial court was wrong in issuing the process on the basis of a list of wetness which was filed after the order of cognizance. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the accused petitioners has relied upon the following cases : 1. 2010(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 745 : AIR 2010 SC 1907 Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal H. 2. 1998 Cri. L.J. 2164 (Karnataka High Court) A.K.Suresh v. Rajendra Peter & Anr. 3. 2001 Cri.L.J. 295 (Bombay High Court) Bhiku Yaswant Dhangat & Ors. v. Bahan Murti Barate & Anr. 4. 2002 Cri. L.J. 1926 Fakirappa v. Shiddalingappa & Ors. 6. 745 : AIR 2010 SC 1907 Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal H. 2. 1998 Cri. L.J. 2164 (Karnataka High Court) A.K.Suresh v. Rajendra Peter & Anr. 3. 2001 Cri.L.J. 295 (Bombay High Court) Bhiku Yaswant Dhangat & Ors. v. Bahan Murti Barate & Anr. 4. 2002 Cri. L.J. 1926 Fakirappa v. Shiddalingappa & Ors. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant non-petitioner by supporting the impugned order has submitted that both the grounds taken by the accused petitioners are not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case by the reason that the different complaints made on behalf of the complainant in different courts relate to different transactions and the list of witnesses was filed in the trial court after the order of cognizance was passed in accordance with the provisions of Section 204(2) Criminal Procedure Code. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the impugned order and also went through the case law cited before me. I have also perused the record made available to me. 8. I am in agreement with the findings of the learned trial court. None of the grounds raised on behalf of the accused petitioners is tenable in law in the facts and circumstances. of the present case. 9. So far as the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case is concerned, it is applicable only when it is shown that different complaints relating to the same transaction have been filed by the same complainant in different courts. In the present case, nothing is available on record from which it can be inferred that the different complaints which have been filed by the complainant non-petitioner in different courts situated at Jaipur City relate to the same transaction. The learned trial court on the basis of material available on the record has come to the conclusion that the accused petitioners purchased goods under different bills from the complainant non petitioner on different dates and different cheques were issued by them on different dates towards cost of the goods purchased and thus the cheques relates to different transactions. The learned counsel for the accused petitioners has miserably failed to show that the different cheques on the basis of which the complainant non-petitioner has filed different complaints relate to the same transaction. 10. The learned counsel for the accused petitioners has miserably failed to show that the different cheques on the basis of which the complainant non-petitioner has filed different complaints relate to the same transaction. 10. So far as the filing of the list of witnesses is concerned, according to Section 204(2) Criminal Procedure Code no summons or warrant shall he issued against the accused under sub-section (1) until a list of prosecution witness has been filed. According to this provision, if cognizance order is made for an offence by a court, then it is necessary for the complainant to file a list of witnesses and unless such list is filed, process could not be issued against the accused. The stage of filing of list of witnesses does not arise unless the order of cognizance is passed by the court. It is not required that the list of witnesses should be filed alongwith the complaint. In the present case, complainant non-petitioner is compliance of the order of the trial court filed a list of witnesses and after that process was issued to summon the present accused petitioners. 11. For the reasons stated above, it cannot he said that the learned trial court by passing the impugned order has committed any irregularity or illegality requiring interference of this Court.Consequently. the revision petition being devoid of any force is, hereby. dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******