1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 5.6.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in Criminal Case No. 188 of 2007, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 219, CrPC read with Section 223 CrPC has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case various complaints which were filed by the complainant against the petitioner were involving a similar type of offences committed within a period of one year and therefore the trial of the three cases being cases Nos. 188 of 2007, 189 of 2007 and 190 of 2007 should have been directed to be consolidated. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Kamal Gang v. State & Anr., reported in 2008 (1) CrLR (Raj.) 459 .

3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 submits that in this case, the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act. He submits that in the case of Negotiable Instruments Act, the charge is not framed against the accused but only the accusation is read out and therefore, the provision of Section 219 CrPC is not applicable to a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Vijay Dev & Ors. v. Kailash Chand & Anr., reported in 2008 (2) CrLR (Raj.) 1206 : 2008 (2) NIJ 463 (Raj.) and Nirmal Singh v. Bhoj Raj, reported in 2007 (2) CrLR (Raj.) 1710 .

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon considering the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the order impugned, it is evident that the petitioner is facing complaints for the offence under Section 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act. In the case involving offence under Section 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act, only the accusation is read out to the accused and no formal charge is to be framed. Prima facie, the provision of Section 219 CrPC would have no application to a summons case. This Court whilst considering the same provision in the case of Vijay Dev (supra) held that Sections 219 and 220 CrPC do not apply to the offence under Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, the learned Trial Court has committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for consolidating all the cases registered against the petitioner.

5. Resultantly, this misc. petition as well as stay petition being bereft of any force are hereby rejected.Petition Dismissed.

*******