The main legal point established in the judgment is that each transaction under each invoice was separate, and the issuance of separate cheques constituted separate offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 1 ) SINCE the parties are same and as common questions of law are involved in all these petitions, they can be disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix necessary for better understanding of the matter and for an effective adjudication of the same may be set forth herein below thus: the first respondent herein is the complainant and the petitioners herein are the accused in as many as ten cases in c. C. Nos. 60,61,63, to 69 and 108 of 2001 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act ( the Act for brevity) before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate vijayawada. The complainant is a Registered company having been registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It manufactures and sells automobiles tyres, tubes and flaps. The first accused is a partnership firm and the second accused is its Managing Partner. It is alleged, inter alia, in the complaint that the accused purchased tyres, tubes and flaps from time to time from the complainant-Company on credit basis under various invoices and issued cheques in discharge of the amounts due under the said invoices. As many as 30 cheques drawn on Bank of Baroda, had thus been issued against the in oices on various dates as detailed, inter alia, in the complaints in a tabular form. Those cheques were presented for Collection on 15-05-1999 with Bank of india, Governorpet, Vijayawada, the complainant s banker. However, under a single intimation dated 17-05-1999, the Bank informed the complainant about the dishonour of the cheques with the endorsement payments stopped by drawer . The complainant, therefore, got a single legal notice dated 26-05-1999 issued to the accused, informing, inter alia, the dishonour of all the cheques and demanded the payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of that notice. The accused having received the said notice got a reply dated 07-06-1999 issued to the counsel of the complainant. The defence set forth in the reply is not germane for the present purposes. Thereafter, the complainant, as aforesaid, filed ten complaints limiting three cheques per each complaint specifying, inter alia, that since the purchases were made by the accused under different invoices and since separate cheques were issued in discharge of the liability under each of the invoices, complaints were filed for dishonour limiting three cheques per complaint.

( 3 ) PURSUANT to the summonses issued in the criminal cases, the accused appeared before the Court. The trial in the cases was commenced and P. W. 1 was examined on behalf of the complaint in chief. After having taken time for cross-examination of the witness, the accused filed 9 petitions, under section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( the Code for brevity) seeking discharge from nine out of ten cases mentioning, inter alia, that inasmuch as a single cause of action had arisen in respect of all the 30 dishonoured cheques and as all of them arise out of the same transaction, filing different complaints would cause grave prejudice to the accused besides harassment.

( 4 ) THE trial Court dismissed all those petitions. The revisional Court going by the fact that the accused were examined under section 251 of the Code and thereafter one witness was examined on the side of the complainant in chief, the accused should not plead for discharge at that stage, dismissed all the revision petitions. The petitioners as aforesaid are assailing those orders.

( 5 ) SRI P. V. R. Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends, that there has been a single cause of action for all the 30 cheques and one complaint ought to have been filed in respect of all the 30 cheques. The learned Counsel contends further that series of cheques have been given in the course of the same transaction and, therefore, even if more offences than one are alleged to have been committed, the accused can be charged with and tried at one trial for all such offences. The learned Counsel further contends that 1