BLUE BLENDS INDIA LIMITED Vs. THIRUMAGAL MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Order: all the above Criminal Revision Cases are filed by one and the same parties as against the same respondent against the orders all dated 6. 7. 2004 respectively made in Crl. M. P. No. 1535 of 2004 in C. C. No. 192 of 1998, Crl. M. P. No. 1534 of 2004 in C. C. No. 187 of 1998, Crl. M. P. No. 1531 of 2004 in C. C. No. 188 of 1998, Crl. M. P. No. 1527 of 2004 in C. C. No. 191 of 1998 and Crl. M. P. No. 1530 of 2004 in C. C. No. 190 of 1998 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham.

(2.) ON a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned senior counsel for the respondent, it comes to be known that the respondent herein has lodged all the above mentioned criminal cases as against the petitioners herein for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During pendency of the said cases, the revision petitioners herein who are accused in all the above cases have filed the above mentioned criminal miscellaneous petitions before the Court below seeking to re-call the process issued in the cases and discharge them from the cases on ground that the respondent/complainant has received all the amounts due from the revision petitioners and also acknowledged the same by issuing receipts and that the accused and the complainant entered into a compromise.

(3.) THIS claim of the accused was rebutted by the complainant on ground that the points raised by the accused are all the matters to be decided during the course of trial; that the payments received from the accused were credited to the accounts of the accused maintained by the complainant and no receipt has been issued referring to the cases pending before the Court; that the accused made the payment knowing full well that the same were made against the outstanding payments payable to the complainant on account of the yarn supplied by the complainant which include bank changes, belated interest payments as per the contract of supply of goods; that even all the receipts issued by the complainant specifically states that the payments were received towards account balance and not towards the cheque amounts involved in the cases, the petitions filed by the accused are without merit and are liable to be dismissed.