The central legal point established is that separate private complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be tried independently, and common evidence and joint trials are impermissible.

1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 12.7.2007 passed by the learned VI Metropolian Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.Nos.10573/2001, 4277, 4278, 4279, 4280, 4281, 4487 to 4501, 4603 to 4607, 4613, 4614 and 4615 of 2002.

2. The accused in all these cases are common and the complainant is also common. These appeals have been filed challenging the acquittal of the respondents/accused by the trial court.

3. In all these cases, the prosecution has been launched by the complainant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the alleged business transaction between the complainant and the accused party. There were 29 cheques issued by the accused for Rs.5 lakhs each which were presented for collection. Most of the cheques were dishonoured on the ground that there was no sufficient funds in the account of the accused and the rest of the cheques were dishonoured on the ground that there had been "stop payment" order issued by the account holder to the bank. The complainant issued a statutory notice as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said notice was not complied with by the accused, which gave rise to the cause of action for filing 29 separate private complaints before the learned Magistrate. To put it otherwise, in respect of dishonour of each cheque and each cause of action a separate private complaint was launched. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of all the private complaints independently and issued summons to the accused.

4. When all the cases were taken up for trial, it is seen from the records that the accused as well as the complainant made a request to have a joint trial of all the 29 cases by clubbing them together. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate recorded evidence in common in all the 29 cases by way of joint trial and heard all the cases jointly and finally acquitted the accused in all the 29 cases by a common judgment. That is how as against the acquittal in each case, these appeals have been respectively filed before this court.

5. When the appeals were taken up for final disposal a doubt arose in the mind of this court regarding the correctness of the procedure followed by the trial court in clubbing all the 29 cases together and recording common evidence so as to deliver a common judgment. The only explanation as found in the judgment of the trial court is that the joint trial was conducted on the request made by the parties to the proceedings. In my considered opinion, the said procedure adopted by the trial court is illegal. Indisputably, all these 29 cases are relating to 29 separate private complaints upon which separate cognizance was taken. There is no provision either in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the N.I. Act or elsewhere to club all the cases together and to record common evidence and deliver common judgment. It is settled law that the evidence relating to one case may not be relevant in the other case. Therefore, the evidence which is relevant in one case cannot be relied on in the other case for the purpose referred to in the other case. Thus, I have no hesitation to hold that the procedure adopted by the the trial court is not mere procedural irregularity, which is curable in law but an illegality which vitiates the entire proceedings. In this regard, I may refer to the judgment of this court in MANJULA VS. COLGATE PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD (2006 (5) CTC 303) wherein the Division Bench was called upon to consider the scope of Section 219 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis Section 138 of the N.I.Act. In that case 16 cheques were presented for collection and the same were returned dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. But a single notice was issued demanding the cheque amounts. It was not complied with. In those circumstances, a single complaint was filed in respect of 16 cheques. When a plea was taken before the Division Bench that as per Section 219 Cr.P.C., there can be joinder of only three o