Madras High Court
M/S Printo Stick And Another vs M.L. Oswal on 2 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997CRILJ2122
ORDER
1. The grievance of the petitioner in this revision is that more than three instances have been clubbed together in a single transaction, which is contrary to the mandate under Section 219, of the Cr.P.C.
2. The respondent filed a complaint for the offence under Sections 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, in C.C. No. 7561 of 1990, against the petitioner, stating that the complainant sold and delivered fancy papers etc. on credit to the accused for Rs. 45,812-16, for which the accused gave four cheques to the complainant viz.
(1) dated 25-5-1990 for Rs. 5,000/-, (2) dated 5-6-1990 for Rs. 4570- 85, (3) dated 25-6-1990 for Rs. 5,000/- and (4) dated 5-7-1990 for Rs. 3588-36, totalling to the tune of Rs. 18,159-21, and that after due dates, the complainant presented the said cheques for realisation and the same have been dishonoured by the bank with the endorsement "exceeds arrangement" and that in spite of the statutory notice, the accused did not make the payment in time.
3. This was taken on file by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, for the above said offences, and questioned the accused on 14-12-1990. The accused pleaded not guilty. The question put by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is as follows :-
This order is under the challenge in this revision, contending that the four cheques relating to the four instances have been clubbed together in a single case and thereby, Section 219, Cr.P.C., has been violated. For substantiating the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision reported in, 1994(1) Mad LW (Crl.) 34 M/s. Ruby Leather Exports Rep. by its Proprietor, Baskar v. K. Venu, Rep. Vandhana Chemicals Etc. In paragraph 37 of the above referred judgment, Arunachalam, J, has held as follows :-
"Second ground, that there is patent violation of the provisions under S. 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in that more than three transaction within a year from part of this prosecution, will have to be upheld. On that ground, the impugned prosecution cannot be quashed. However, the respondent will have to choose on which of these five cheques, he would have the prosecution maintained. That shall be stated before the concerned Magistrate. Subject to this limited observation, on the second ground, this petition, shall stand dismissed."
4. I am entirely in agreement with this observation and accordingly. I direct the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, to comply with the provision of Section 219, Cr.P.C., by asking the complaint to choose, on which of these four cheques, he would have the prosecution maintained, and then go on with the trial and dispose the same as expeditiously as possible.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, dated 14-12-1990, in C.C. No. 7561 of 1990 is set aside and the matter is remanded with a direction to put a fresh question under Section 219, Cr.P.C., to the complainant to State, which of the three cheques out of the four cheques mentioned in the complaint, he is going to choose to maintain the prosecution and then proceed the trial. I also direct the Metropolitan Magistrate to dispose the matter as expeditiously as possible. The Registry is directed to send back the records forthwith.
6. Order accordingly.