REGINALD ABRAHAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, the petitioners, who are Al to A3 in CC No.356 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Chilakluripet, assail the order dated 31-1-2000 made in Crl.MP No.747 of 1999 in the said case, by which the learned Magistrate refused to discharge them under Section 239 Cr.PC of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

(2.) The factual matrix, according to the charge-sheet filed by the SHO., Chilakaluripet (Town) P.S., is as follows:

(3.) The de facto complainant K.Subba Rao and the two others are the partners of "Kokkera Brothers" and they are engaged in the business of cotton such as pressing and supplying the lint bales etc. In their business transactions, during the year 1994 as per the understanding entered into between the then Administrator of Kamakshi Amman Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited Kancheepuram, Kokkera, Brothers supplied 37 lots of lint bales between December, 1994 and June 1995 and the entire value of the said bales was paid creating an impression that the said Kamakshi Amman Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited is a genuine custom. From Mr. Thangavelu, the then Administrator of Kamakshi Amman Co-operative Spinning Mills Limited, Kancheepuram, one Mr. Ekambaram took over as Administrator and during his tenure also on account of the impression created by the said Ekambaram, Kokkera Brothers supplied 13 lots of lint bales between the period from 22-6-1995 to 4-7-1995, the cost of which is Rs.67,47,882/-. As the said amount was not paid in time, the complainant's firm stopped supplies. In the meanwhile, the said Ekambaram was transferred and T.P Lakshmanan, who is the 2nd petitioner herein, assumed office on 31-7-1995. Immediately thereafter, it is alleged that the 2nd petitioner herein lured the de facto complainant stating that he would clear off the old dues and make prompt payment and requested him to continue the supply of cotton bales. But the de facto complainant did not supply the cotton bales, as the arrears were not paid. After a gap of about seven months, the 2nd petitioner again promised the de facto complainant stating that the payment will be made for the current supply of cotton bales and in that regard a letter in writing also was issued. Believing the said promise and also the promise that the arrears also would be paid at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per lot, the de facto complainant started supplies and accordingly supplied 27 lots during the period from 1-2-1996 to 31-7-1996. Though the promise was to pay the entire amount on the current supply of cotton and also the arrears, there was a balance of Rs. 10,78,366/- by the time the 2nd petitioner left and the 1 st petitioner assumed office as an Administrator. The same was confirmed by a letter addressed by the 1st petitioner to the de facto complainant. Subsequently, the 3rd petitioner assumed office as Administrator in the place of the 1st petitioner and he also promised that entire arrears as on that date i.e., Rs.78,26,248/- would be paid and requested for supply of cotton bales. Basing on the said assurance and promise made by the 3rd petitioner, the de facto complainant deputed his clerk who went all the way to Kancheepuram where he was assured that the moment the entire yarn is disposed of to Co-optex, the amount would be paid. But, the 3rd petitioner also did not keep up the promise though they got prepared yarn in their mill with the cotton bales supplied by the de facto complainant and sold the same to Co-optex and other cotton merchants and received the amounts, they were utilized for some other purposes. Thus, it is alleged that all the petitioners herein acknowledged the debt and promised the payment of the cost of the stocks supplied but failed to pay the same and thus cheated the due facto complainant, which acts are liable to be punished under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.