S. M. SIDICKK, J.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused under sections 482 and 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to set aside the order dated March 28, 1995, made in Criminal Revision Petition No. 15 of 1994, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge at Pondicherry, with reference to C.C. No. 230 of 1992, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry.

The material allegations in the petition are as follows :

The respondent had preferred a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, in C.C. No. 230 of 1992, and the learned magistrate had framed charges against the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by that had preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No. 15 of 1994, before the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, under section 397(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to revise the charges framed by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Pondicherry, and also to discharge the accused from the case in C.C. No. 230 of 1992, on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Pondicherry. The Judicial I Class Magistrate, Pondicherry, had violated section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, inasmuch as the learned magistrate had taken cognizance of offences pertaining to the dishonour of six cheques in one single complaint filed in the case referred to supra. The same is not only contrary to law but also it is illegal. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, will disposing Criminal Revision Petition No. 15 of 1994, dated March 28, 1995, in his order had dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and also held that the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Pondicherry, did not violate section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.On hearing learned counsel for both sides, the point that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in this petition under sections 482 and 483 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Point : Learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contended that the respondent has filed a complaint before the trial magistrate on the basis of six dishonoured cheques, and that cannot be done because the dishonour of each cheque will give a separate cause of action for filing a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

The above contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable for the following reasons. The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of six dishonoured cheques. Section 219(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code states that when a person is accused of more than one offence 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 exceeding three. In the present case, a reading of the complaint by the respondent before the lower court filed along with the typed set of papers in this petition, revealed that six dishonoured cheques were given to the respondent in the months of September, October and November, 1991, on various dates, i.e., within a period of twelve months. However, in the complaint the respondent/complainant would state that the accused required him to present all these six cheques together on January 24, 1992, and the complainant accordingly presented all the cheques together and they have been returned on the same date, i.e., on January 28, 1992, with an endorsement "payment stopped". Therefore, each cheque will not give a separate cause of action in view of the request made by the petitioner/accused herein to present all the cheques on a particular date which was done by the respondent/complainant in this case and so section 219(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not attrac