Multiple offenses of the same kind committed within a space of twelve months can be charged and tried at one trial under Section 219 of the CrPC, provided that the offenses are not in respect of different persons.

This is a petition filed by the petitioner /accused under Ss. 482 and 483, Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 28-3-1995 made in Crl. Revision petition No. 15/94 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge at Pondicherry with reference to CC No. 230/92 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry.

2. The material allegations in the petition are as follows : - The respondent had preferred a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry in CC No. 230 of 1992 and the learned Magistrate had framed charges against the petitioners. The petitioner aggrieved by that had preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No. 15/94 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondichery under S.397 (1) Cr.P.C. 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. 230/92 on the file of Judicial I Class Magistrate, Pondicherry. The Judicial I Class Magistrate, Pondicherry has violated S. 219, Cr.P.C in as much as the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences pertaining to the dishonour of six cheques in one single complaint filed in the case referred supra. The same is not only contrary to law but also it is illegal. The learned Principal Session Judge, Pondicherry while disposing the criminal revision petition 15/94 dated 28-3-1995 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 S. 219, Cr.P.C.

3. On hearing the 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 and the Ss.482 and 483, Cr.P.C.

4. Point : - The learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contended that the respondent has filed a complaint before the trail Magistrate on the basis of six dishonoured cheques, and that cannot be done because the dishonour of each cheque will give a separately cause of action for filing a complaint under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in all the three dishonoured cheques can be brought into penal action under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and this is made clear in the provision of S. 219Cr.P.C, and in those circumstances, the order passed by the Principal sessions Judge, Pondicherry in Crl, Revision Petition No. 15/94 dated 28-3-1995 must be set aside.

5. The above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner are untenable for the following reasons. The respondent filed a private complaint against the petitioner for an offence under S. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on the basis of six dishonoured cheques. Section 219(1) of Cr.P.C. states that when a person is accused of more offences then one of the same kind committed within a space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trail for any number of them not 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 he 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 the six cheques together on 24-1-1992 and the complainant accordingly presented all the cheques together and they have been returned on the same date i.e. on 28-1-1992 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 S. 219 (1), Cr.P.C. and is not at