THANGAYELU Vs. PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The above three revisions have been filed challenging the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Coimbatore, in Crl. M. P. Nos. 1978, 1979 and 1980 in C. C. Nos. 787 of 1993, 104 of 1993 respectively on 24. 5. 1996.

(2.) THE petitioner is one and the same person and respondents/complainants are different. Since common question of law identical in nature arises for consideration in all these revisions, after hearing the Bar for the respective parties, I have proposed to dispose the same by pronouncing this common order.

(3.) THREE different cheques as defined under the Negotiable Instruments Act were claimed to have been executed by the accused, who is the revision petitioner herein, drawn in the name of the respondents herein and who on their part presented them with their Bank for encashment but however returned as bounced, followed by the issuance of the legal notices demanding the payments of the amounts within the time as provided by the law and since the demand had not been complied with, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, complaints had been filed before the Court below. After taking of cognizance of the same and issuance of process, the accused in all the three cases above referred to, who is one and the same person, filed petitions under Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the joint trial of all the three cases and in the same petition filed petitions under Section 254 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the relief of examining the complainants as witnesses for the defence. The said petitions were resisted by the respondents and the learned Judicial Magistrate after having heard the matter fully, dismissed the above three petitions by passing the impugned orders and aggrieved, the three revisions above referred to were sought to be admitted. On ordering notice of motion, the respondents/complainants have entered appearance through the Bar.