A single complaint can be filed for multiple cheques under Section 219 of the Cr.P.C. if they relate to the same transaction, and the presumption of correctness of bank slips under Section 146 of the N.I. Act applies unless disproven.

ORDER :

(K. Surender, J.)

1. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') by the trial Court and confirmed in the appeal by the Sessions Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.

3. The case of the complainant is that petitioner herein/accused borrowed an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- from the complainant on 15.06.2009. Thereafter, he issued three cheques which were post dated. The said cheques are Exs.P.1 to P.3 for Rs.1,20,000/-, Rs.70,000/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively bearing different dates. However, all the three cheques when presented for clearance on 01.12.2009 with the complainant's banker, a common memo Ex.P.4 was issued on 09.12.2009 stating the cheques returned for 'insufficient funds'. Legal notice was issued on 22.12.2009 to the accused of which Ex.P.5 is the office copy of legal notice. Ex.P.8, reply notice was sent by the accused. Since the amount covered by the cheques was not paid even after receiving the notice, the complaint was filed.

4. The learned trial Judge having examined the complainant as P.W.1 and 2 others on behalf of the accused who are D.Ws.1 and 2 found that the cheques in question were issued to discharge the accused liability. Accordingly, conviction was recorded.

5. Learned Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate and confirmed conviction.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that it is admitted that there are three cheques which were issued bearing different dates and different amounts, the complainant cannot file a single complaint on the basis of three cheques being returned. For three cheques, separate notices ought to have been issued and in fact in the common notice which is marked as Ex.P.5, it is not specifically mentioned regarding liability against each cheque. Further, Ex.P.4, cheque return memo was not proved by examining Branch Manager of the Bank or the person who has signed on Ex.P.4. The said issues were not dealt with by the Courts below. Learned Sessions Judge relied on Section 219 of Cr.P.C to come to a conclusion that single complaint can be filed based on all the three cheques. However, the said finding of the Sessions Judge is incorrect since as per Section 219 Cr.P.C. three offences, if they occur in the same year, such cases can be clubbed. Since on facts, there cannot be any application of Section 219 of Cr.P.C., the very finding of the learned Sessions Judge is incorrect, revision petition has to be allowed.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant would submit that there are several judgments which state that one complaint can be maintained for different cheques. Further, it is not case of the accused that there is no outstanding. However, the accused intends to succeed in the revision on the basis of technicality.

8. It is not in dispute that three cheques Exs.P.1 to P.3 were issued to the complainant for different amounts, however, to discharge outstanding of Rs.2,70,000/-. The said cheques are bearing different dates. However, there is no infirmity in sending all the three cheques together for the purpose of clearance. All the cheques returned with an endorsement 'insufficient funds'/Ex.P.4.

9. Under Section 146 of N.I.Act, presumption arises regarding bank slip and memo being correct unless the said fact is disproved. No evidence is let in by the accused to disprove the said fact. The said notice under Ex.P.5 indicates that three cheques were issued, cheque numbers were mentioned, amounts were mentioned and also outstanding is mentioned. Once notice is issued with details and also asking to pay the amount covered by the cheques, all the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I.Act are fulfilled. The argument by the learned counsel that three different complaints have to be tried in incorrect.

10. The transaction i