The issuance of multiple cheques to discharge a single debt is considered to be one transaction for the purpose of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, the joinder of charges in such cases is not barred.

V. S. Aggarwal, J.

1. Since common questions are involved, therefore, all the three criminal revisions can be disposed of together.

2. The relevant facts are that petitioner Ms. Anita filed a complaint against the respondents asserting that respondent Anil K. Mehra as partner of the firm Ms. Mehra Enterprises, of which respondents 2 and 3 are also partners, issued ten cheques for Rs.2066.66 paisa each in her favour. They had been drawn on the Central Bank of India. Sector 22-C, Ghandigarh to the discharge the debt of Rs.20666.60 paise on account of the loan advanced. The details of the cheques and their numbers had been given in the complaint. The cheques had been presented for encashment and were received back with the remarks exceeds arrangements. A notice was issued to the firm calling upon it to pay the amount of cheques within 15 days. It was received on 22.4.1989 but the payment was not made. Instead a reply was sent. The learned Judicial Magistrate summoned the respondents as accused persons.

3. On identical facts petitioner Santosh Kumari preferred another criminal complaint with respect to the offence under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Herein nine cheques of Rs.2066.66 paise had been issued by respondent Anil K. Mehra of the same concern which have been dishonoured in a similar manner.

4. The third complaint was filed by Ms. Sangita against the respondents asserting that respondent Anil K. Mehra partner of the same firm issued ten cheques for Rs.1550.00 each and in a similar manner the same were dishonoured with the remarks exceeds arrangement. The learned Judicial Magistrate had summoned the respondents as the accused.

5. The respondents had preferred criminal revisions in the Court of Sessions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide the impugned judgment dated 15.7.1993 relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Gulshan Rai V/s. Anil Kumar Sawhney, accepted the revisions and quashed the impugned complaints. The respondents were discharged.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgments of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, the present revision petitions have been filed.

7. It is not subject matter of any controversy that decision of this Court referred to above in the case of Gulshan Rai (Supra) which was relied by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has since been set aside by the Supreme Court of India in the case titled Anil Kumar Sawhney V/s. Gulshan Rai. The Supreme Court settled the controversy by holding that a post-dated cheque shall be deemed to have been drawn on the date it bears and the period of six months has to be reckoned from the date mentioned on the face of the cheque.

8. That being the position, the reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard cannot be sustained. However, the respondents learned counsel took up certain other contentions so as to support the fact that the proceedings had to be quashed and the revision petitions must fail.

9. It was urged vehemently that in each of the complaint more than three cheques are alleged to have been issued while under Sec.219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of 12 months, he can be charged and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. To buttress this argument, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of Madras High. Court in the case of S. Kiran V/s. D. C. Corporation.

10. In the case of S. Kiran (supra) certain goods had been sold by the complainant to the accused. After giving credit to various part payments made by the accused, certain sum was found due. Accused issued five cheques. When the said cheques were presented, they were returned dishonoured. After giving the notice a complaint was filed. It was held that the complainant will have to choose as to which of those five cheques, he will pick up the three regarding which prosecution would be maintainable