The compensatory aspect of the remedy under Section 138 of the NI Act should be prioritized over the punitive aspect, and the trial court may conduct a common trial in respect of multiple complaints if they are in relation to the same transaction and do not cause prejudice to the accused.

1. These petitions are heard and disposed of together as the same are preferred by the very petitioners against the very respondent and are preferred challenging a common judgment.

2. The respondent was the complainant before the trial court and sought to prosecute the petitioners herein for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act', for brevity;, in respect of the several cheques issued by the petitioners in favour of the respondent in the course of business transactions between the petitioners and the respondent, which were said to have been dishonoured.

The respondent is said to be a registered partnership firm. The petitioner no. 1 is a private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner no.2 is the Managing Director of petitioner no.1. The respondent is said to be engaged in the business of manufacturing fish meal and other allied sea products. It is stated that the petitioners were purchasing steam - sterilized fish meal from the respondent. In respect of supplies made against orders for the said goods, during the period 25.3.2008 to 23.6.2008, it is claimed that the petitioners were due to pay a total amount of Rs. 121,81,750/-and it is admitted that a total amount of Rs.30,39; 100/- was paid against the said due, by way of cheques. It is stated on a demand for payment of the balance amount -the petitioners had admitted an outstanding amount of Rs.78,18, 000/-, though the actual amount outstanding was Rs.82,42,450/-, vide letter dated 6.10.2008, and is said to have undertaker to pay the same by 31.10.2008.

It is stated that the petitioners had, in fact, issued a total of 18 cheques in varying amounts, totaling to Rs.71 lakh, as detailed hereinafter. The same when presented by the respondent through its banker, are said to have been returned with an endorsement, by the banker of the petitioners, that the funds in the account were insufficient and accordingly were dishonoured. In the wake of which, the respondent is said to have issued notices as contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act, which were duly served on the petitioners, who are said to have replied to the same, denying the issuance of the cheques towards payment of the outstanding amount, but claiming that the respondent had obtained the cheques, endorsed in blank, at the inception of the transactions to make supplies on credit and that the same were mischievously sought to be misused in seeking to foist a criminal liability. It is in that background that the respondent is said to have instituted 18 complaints, one, in respect of each cheque that was dishonoured. The magistrate is said to have taken cognizance of the cases and after having recorded the sworn statements of the complainant, had directed the issuance of summons to the petitioners.

The distinct case registered in respect of each cheque that was dishonoured and the amount for which the same was drawn and the respective date thereof, are shown hereunder in tabular form :

(“Table”)

It is stated that the petitioners, who were the accused, had entered appearance in those cases and pleaded that they were not guilty of the offences alleged. The respondent had then tendered evidence. It is stated that the statements of the petitioners under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC', for brevity) was said to have been recorded. The petitioners had not chosen to lead any evidence. The Trial Court is said to have rendered a common judgment dated 12.6.2012 convicting the petitioners for the said offence.

The petitioners are said to have filed appeals in Crl.Appeals No.143, 144 and 146 to 161 of 2012 against the said judgments of the Trial Court. The respondent, in turn, is said to have filed appeals in Criminal Appeals No. 162 to 179 of 2012, claiming enhancement of the sentence. The appeals filed by the petitioners were said to have been a