Joint trials are permitted under specific conditions; distinct causes of action prevent consolidation of cases.

ORDER

The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.2493 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-V (Special Court-Marklist Cases), Thiruvananthapuram ('Trial Court', in short), which has been filed by the 2^nd respondent-company alleging the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('N.I.Act', in short).

2. The petitioners state that, the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd respondent had entered into Annexure A1 agreement for channel carriage and placement for the period from 01.06.2015 to 31.05.2017. As per the terms of the said agreement, the 1^st petitioner had issued blank cheques to the 2^nd respondent towards security. The 2^nd respondent had illegally manipulated the cheques by writing fanciful amounts in the cheques, beyond the contours of Annexure A1 agreement, and presented the same for collection. The cheques got dishonoured and 64 complaints have been filed before the same court alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. Since all the cheques were issued in connection with the same transaction, the Court of Sessions, by Annexure A2 order, directed the cases to be transferred to the same court. After the transfer, the petitioners had filed separate petitions for the joint trial of all the cases, as envisaged under Section 218 (1) read with Section 220(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Code', in short). However, the learned Magistrate, by Annexures A4 to A66 orders, has dismissed the applications on the finding that taking of composite evidence will lead to confusion as all the cheques are bearing different dates and have been dishonoured on different dates and separate statutory notices have been issued. Annexures A4 to A66 orders are ex facie erroneous and illegal. Hence, this Crl.M.C.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

4. It is not in dispute that the cheques in respect of all the cases, covered under Annexures A4 to A66 orders, are in respect of independent causes of action.

5. The petitioners want all the 64 complaints to be jointly tried, as the parties are the same and the cheques have been issued in respect of the same transaction.

6. In the above context, it is apposite to refer to Section 219 of the Code, which reads as follows:

“219. Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together.- (1) When a person is accused of more offences than one 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 not exceeding three.

(2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or of any special or local laws;

Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under section 380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence.”

7. A plain reading of the above provision unambiguously substantiates that a person accused of only three offences of the same kind committed within the space of 12 months from the first to last offence can be tried together.

8. In light of the above provision, there is a statutory bar to jointly try all the complai