1. Second respondent in Crl. Appeal Nos.133/2006, 127/2006, 129/2006 and 131/2006 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thrissur, is the appellant in all these appeals. All these cases were arising out of four private complaints filed by the appellant against the 2nd respondent alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called the ‘Act’).

2. The common case of the complainant in all these cases was that, the complainant is the proprietor of M/s. Sastha Motors Guruvayoor and he was the authorized distributor of petroleum products of M/s. British Petroleum. The accused was appointed as talkist by the complainant for the area of Guruvayoor and Punnapra to distribute Tata B.P. Lube products as per agreement dated 17.08.1998. Accused used to purchase lube products from the complainant on credit basis. As per the accounts, there was an amount of Rs.3,45,277.81 was due from the accused to the complainant and in discharge of those liabilities he had issued Exts.P2 and P5 for Rs.50,000/- each with date 15.11.1999 and 15.12.1999 respectively. Ext.P12 cheque for Rs.25,000/- dated 14.09.1999 and Ext.P15 cheque dated 4.11.1999 for Rs.37,707.30, Ext.P22 cheque dated 15.03.2000 for Rs.50,000/-and Ext.P29 cheque dated 15.01.2000 for Rs.50,000/-, Ext.P32 cheque dated 15.02.2000 for Rs.50,000/- drawn on Corporation Bank Ltd., favour of the complainant.

3. In spite of letters dated 20.12.1999, 04.01.2000 and 01.02.2000 by which he was asked to settle the accounts on or before 09.02.2000, since the accused had not paid the amount, Ext.P2 and P5 cheques were presented and the same were dishonoured for the reason account closed evidenced by Ext.P3 and P6 dishonour memos and the same was intimated to the complainant by their banker vide Ext.P4 and P7 intimation letters. Complainant issued Ext.P8 notice dated 02.03.2000 vide Ext.P9 postal receipt to the accused intimating the dishonour and demanding payment of the amount. The accused received the same evidenced by Ext.P10 postal acknowledgment. He had sent Ext.P11 reply notice containing false allegations. Since he did not pay the amount, he had committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. So the complainant filed a complaint on the basis of the above two cheques under Section 138 of the Act, which after enquiry was taken on file as CC.No.30/2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur.

4. He had presented Ext.P12 and P15 cheques dated 14.09.1999, 04.11.1999 for Rs.25,000/- and 37,707.30 respectively and the same were also dishonoured for the reasons payment stopped by the drawer vide Ext.P13, P16 cheque returned memo and the same were intimated to the complainant by their banker vide Ext.P14 and P17 intimation letters. The complainant issued Ext.P18 notice in respect of those two cheques dated 02.03.2000 vide Ext.P19 postal receipt demanding payment and intimating dishonor, which were received by the accused evidenced by Ext.P20 postal acknowledgment. He had sent Ext.P21 reply notice denying the liability and alleging false allegations. Since he had not paid the amount, the complainant filed another complaint on the basis of those two cheques before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, which was taken on file after enquiry as C.C.No.37/2001 on the file of that court.

5. Complainant presented Ext.P22 cheque dated 15.03.2000 for Rs.50,000/- for collection and the same was dishonoured for the reason payment stopped by the drawer evidenced by Ext.P23 cheque returned memo and the this was intimated to the complainant by their banker vide Ext.P24 intimation letter. They sent Ext.P25 notice dated 06.04.2000 vide Ext.P26 postal receipt and the same was received by the accused evidenced by Ext.P27 postal acknowledgment. The accused sent Ext.P25 reply notice reiterating the contentions raised by him in the earlier cases. Since the accused had not paid the amount, th