The filing of a single complaint for multiple dishonoured cheques is legally maintainable, and Sec.219 Crl.P.C. is not mandatory in proceedings under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act.

Complainant in C.C.No.9577 of 1991 is the Appellant. Aggrieved over the order of acquittal of the Respondent / Accused under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai (by judgment dated 22.03.1993), the Appellant / Complainant has preferred this appeal.

2. Relevant facts for disposal of this appeal could briefly be stated thus:- On 18.03.1991 the Accused has availed a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the Complainant. He has agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 30% per annum. For repayment of the said amount, Accused had issued 11 cheques on various dates between May 1991 - August 1991 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, N.S.C. Bose Road, Chennai. When the cheques were presented for collection in UCO Bank on 30.08.1991 by the Complainant, all cheques were dishonoured on 02.09.1991 with endorsement 'payments stopped by the drawer'. The Complainant sent a legal notice dated 05.09.1991. The Accused received the same on 09.09.1991. But he has not made arrangements to repay the loan. The Complainant has filed the complaint under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act for nine cheques.

3. The Accused appeared before the trial Court. Copy of the complaint was served upon him and gist of charge was explained to him. On being questioned, the Accused denied the charge framed against him. To substantiate the charge against the Accused, Suryakant V.Kanakia / Complainant was examined as P.W.1 and six documents were marked on the Complainant's side. The Accused was examined under Sec.313 Crl.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. During questioning under Sec.313 Crl.P.C., he has stated that he had borrowed only Rs.10,000/- and he repaid the same and got back two cheques from the Complainant out of 11 cheques given by him to the Complainant. The Accused also stated that he had sent reply to the notice on 20.09.1991. Further case of the Accused was that the Complainant deliberately did not return the documents pertaining to the loan.

4. Upon consideration of the evidence and the defence version, the learned Magistrate found that in view of Sec.219 Crl.P.C., filing of single case clubbing nine cheques is not maintainable, has acquitted the Accused under Sec.255(1) Crl.P.C. Aggrieved over the acquittal, Complainant has preferred this appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the Appellant / Complainant contended that the trial Court erred in applying Sec.219 Crl.P.C. to the proceedings under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act and finding that more than three cheques cannot be clubbed together. Assailing the finding, learned counsel further submitted that the parties went on trial and the Accused was explained of the charge and also questioned under Sec.313 Crl.P.C. and when no prejudice was caused to the Accused, the trial Court erred in acquitting the Accused and urged for reversal of the acquittal.

6. Reiterating the findings of the trial Court, learned counsel for Respondent / Accused made his submissions on the non-maintainability of the complaint and contended that more than three cheques cannot be filed in a single complaint and the learned Magistrate has rightly dismissed the same applying Sec.219 Crl.P.C.. On the amount payable by the Respondent/ Accused, it is submitted that a Civil Suit was already filed against the Respondent / Accused and in execution of the decree, E.P.No.1194 of 1997 is pending on the file of X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court in which Respondent / Accused has already paid Rs.52,000/- and in that view of the matter, order of acquittal is not to be reversed at this distant point of time.

7. Upon consideration of the submissions by both sides, judgment of the trial Court and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:-

(i) Whether the trial Court was right in saying that dishonour of all the cheques cannot find a place in one complaint ?

(ii) whether Sec.219 Crl.P.C. is mandatory (particularly in respect of proce