SHORT NOTE
KERALA HIGH COURT
V.G. Arun, J.
M/s DE-FAB and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
S. Balachandran – Respondent
Crl.MC No.456 of 2023
Decided on 7.3.2023

IMPORTANT POINT
It is not obligatory for court to hold joint trial – Section 220 of Cr.P.C. being an enabling provision, it is within discretion of court concerned to decide whether or not to order joint trial.

Headnote:

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 220 – Dishonour of cheques – Joint trial – Eight cheques bear different dates and were presented and dishonoured on different dates – Statutory notices were also issued on different dates – Cause of action for filing complaint, viz.; failure of drawer to make payment within stipulated time, after receipt of statutory notice issued under proviso (b) of Section 138 of Act, are also different – Complaints were filed based on different cause of actions, pertaining to offences in relation to each individual cheque – It is not obligatory for court to hold joint trial – Section 220 being an enabling provision, it is within discretion of court concerned to decide whether or not to order joint trial – In case at hand, such discretion was exercised by Magistrate – No reason to interfere with impugned order – Petition dismissed.

Held: Admittedly, the 8 cheques bear different dates and were presented and dishonoured on different dates. The statutory notices were also issued on different dates. Consequently, the cause of action for filing the complaint, viz.; failure of the drawer to make payment within the stipulated time, after receipt of statutory notice issued under proviso (b) of Section 138 of the Act, are also different. The complaints were therefore filed based on different cause of actions, pertaining to offences in relation to each individual cheque. The question whether joint trial could be ordered under such circumstances, was considered by the High Court of Bombay in Rajendra B. Choudhari.

As far as the decisions relied on by the petitioners are concerned, a single registered notice was issued and filed an omnibus complaint under Section 138 in respect of six cheques. It was under such circumstances that this Court held the offences in respect of the six cheques to be part of the same transaction, in view of the sequence, the events, nature of allegation, proximity of commission, unity of action etc. In Shibi @ Jibi Shony (supra), even though the cheques were issued towards discharge of liability under three loans, a single notice was issued calling upon the accused to clear the entire dues under the three loans.

Result: Crl.M.C. dismissed.