R. Basant, J.

The accused in a prosecution under S.138 of the N.I. Act has filed this revision petition against a direction issued by the learned Magistrate that the trial against him - in respect of the alleged offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act in respect of six separate cheques, can proceed in one trial.

2. There is no serious dispute on fundamental facts. These cheques dated 4.5.2000, 11.5.2000, 16.5.2000, 25.5.2000, 31.5.2000 and 8.6.2000 each for an amount of Rs.30,000/- were allegedly issued by the accused to the complainant on the same date i.e., 4.5.2000 for the due discharge of a total liability of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Though the cheques bore different dates, they were not presented for encashment on or immediately after the dates shown in such cheques. All of them were presented together for encashment. The precise date of presentation is not very clear. But at any rate, dishonour memos issued are all dated 18.9.2000. Those separate dishonour memos, six in number, reveal that all the six cheques were dishonoured on the identical ground of insufficiency of funds on 18.9.2000. Thereupon the complainant caused one registered notice of demand to be issued i.e., dated 25.9.2000. A common reply was given dated 9.10.2000 raising identical contentions in defence, the details of which are irrelevant for our purpose now. As payment was not forthcoming within the period stipulated by law the complainant filed an omnibus complaint raising the allegation of commission of the offence punishable under S.138 of the N.I. Act in respect of all six cheques.

3. One should have thought that the accused would be happy that he has to face only one trial. But surprisingly it is the accused who raised objections against the continuance of the trial against him in one trial. He contended that in as much as six cheques were involved separate trials are necessary, at any rate he contended that not more than three cheques could be brought within one prosecution heeding to the mandate of S.219(1) Cr.P.C.

4. The learned Magistrate considered the objections and by the impugned order held that there was nothing wrong in the prosecution for commission of the offence under S.138 of the N.I.Act in respect of all the six cheques being held in one trial. This conclusion of the learned Magistrate is assailed in this

Revision Petition.

5. 8.218(1), 219(1) and 220(1) Cr.P.C. appear to be relevant. I extract those statutory provisions below;

5.218. Separate charges for distinct offences.- (1)Forevery distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately;

Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person.

5.219. Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together.-- (1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three.

5.220. Trial for more than one offence.- (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.

S.218 declares general policy of law that for every distinct offence there must be a separate charge/ allegation and that every such charge/ allegation shall be tried separately. One offence, one charge and one trial is thus the declared policy of law. But this is not rigid principle of universal application. In later provision of Chapter XVIIB we get exceptions to this general rule. Even in S.218(1) there is a well recognised exception. If an accused