Judgment :- (Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in C.C.Nos.4538/03, 7766/02, 16108/03, 806/03 and 10321 of 2002 respectively on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and quash the same.) The petitioners are accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.Nos.4538/03, 7766/02, 16108/03, 806/03 and 10321 of 2002 respectively on the file of the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2. As per the allegations and averments made in the complaint, the petitioners have borrowed from the complainant, a Government of India undertaking, Rs.4,53,200/- by way of Composite Term Loan. Initially a sum of Rs.92,384/- has been paid by the accused. Repayment has been scheduled between the parties with a quarterly payment of Rs.27,104/- to be paid for 20 instalments to complete the transaction. As per the agreement, the first instalment may have to commence on 1.6.2002. But on 9.7.2002, the accused have made payment of Rs.27,200/- and subsequently, they paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- on 11.4.2003. Apart from these two amounts, no other payments have been made, in spite of the demand. Therefore, five cheques for the five respective cases have been deposited for collection and after dishonour, after observing the formalities, the present complaints came to be filed by the complainant in the above said Crl.O.Ps. against the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on 15.10.2003, the complainant have broke upon the workshop and seizure of the machineries has been effected. The amount lent by the respondent/complainant has been utilised only for the purpose of purchasing machineries and cheques have been entrusted with the complainant only as security. When the machineries themselves have been taken into custody by the complainant, debt or liability as mentioned in the Act does not arise at all. Under such circumstances, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not made out. The learned counsel for the petitioners, to substantiate his contention, relied on a judgment reported in Sudha Deevi -Vs- State Of Kerala And Another (2004 CRI.L.J. 3418) wherein it has been held as follows:- "The owner has to take recourse to other legal remedies for recovery of the balance amount. If and when the vehicle is sold subsequently, the owner can recover the balance amount after adjusting the sale proceeds of the vehicle. If and when the vehicle is sold subsequently, the owner can recover the balance amount after adjusting the sale proceeds of the vehicle. Of course, in the post seizure scenario, it may be open to the parties to agree upon a new schedule of payment or restructuring of the hire transaction." Relying on the judgment cited supra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it has to be taken into consideration that the respondent/complainant has chosen to recover the machineries, for which, loan was extended. The value of those machineries may be over and above the amount mentioned in the cheque. Under such circumstances, there is no debt or liability and hence, the proceedings may have to be quashed. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant submits that the seizure of the machineries was effected only on 15.10.2003. After the payments made on 9.7.2002 and on 11.4.2003, in spite of demand, the petitioners could not effect the payment of the quarterly instalments. That is the reason why five cheques have been deposited for collection, which has resulted in the dishonour. Those cheques have been deposited prior to the seizure of the machineries. After dishonour, notice has been issued to the petitioners, for which, no reply has been received by the respondent/complainant. As per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, if payment is not made, after receipt of notice, within a period of 15 days, cause of action arises and the respondent/complainant, after observing the formalities, filed the above said cases against the petitioners and cognizance of the offence has been taken by the learned Magistrate. All these exercises happened prior to the seizure of the machineries. Subsequent developments may have to be taken into account only during the course of the trial. The amount of Rs.4,53,200/- was advanced, as per the agreement dated 6.4.2001, and machineries were seized only on 15.10.2003. under such circumstances, if cheques were presented after seizure of the machineries, the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioners may be relevant but in the instant case before even seizure of the machinereis, proceedings have been initiated by the learned Magistrate. It is further contended that the object of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to punish a person if a cheque issued by him is dishonoured. It is further contended that the object of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to punish a person if a cheque issued by him is dishonoured. The total amount involved in the transaction is Rs.4,53,200/- and among 20 cheques, only five cheques have been deposited for collection. Even after filing of the cases, since there was no response from the petitioners, the machineries were seized. The value of the machineries etc. may have to be assessed only during the course of the trial. 5. I have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made by both parties. The case referred by the counsel for the petitioners relates to hire purchase agreement. In the instant case, loan has been sanctioned by the complainant and after receiving the loan, machineries have been purchased. After purchase of the machineries, a charge has been created against the machineries for the loan. Under such circumstances, the principles laid down in the case relied on by the petitioner cannot be equated with the present transaction. On perusal of the other materials available on record, I find, prima facie case is made out. However, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the points before the trial Court during the course of trial. This petition is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, connected Crl.M.Ps. are closed.