Delhi High Court
Gulshan Kumar Ahuja vs Veena Sharma on 1 April, 2003
Equivalent citations: II (2004) BC 301, 4 (2003) CCR 383, 107 (2003) DLT 725
Author: O Dwivedi
Bench: O Dwivedi
JUDGMENT
O.P. Dwivedi, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17th November, 2001 passed by learned MM whereby learned MM ordered for clubbing of two complaint cases being No. 53/2000 and 54/2000 filed by the petitioner against the respondent.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner filed two complaints vide complaint Nos. 53/2000 and 54/2000 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the respondent on the basis of dishonouring of cheque Nos. 073386 dated 16th April, 2000 and 073385; dated 16th February, 2000 amounting to Rs. 50,000/- each. Both these cheques were presented for encashment on the same date and both cheques were dishonoured with the remarks "funds insufficient". Petitioner issued a legal notice. After summoning, accused / respondent had put in appearance and filed an application for consolidation of two complaint cases so that these can be tried together in view of Sections 219/220, Cr.P.C This application was allowed by learned MM vide impugned order dated 17th November, 2001. Learned MM was of the view that since the parties are common, these complaints can be clubbed together for joint trial.
3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this revision petition against the said order dated 17th November, 2001.
4. The main contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Section 219 of the Cr.P.C. which deals with joint trial of two offences of the same kind within the span of one year, does not apply to summon trials. There is no dispute with this proposition of law. Section 219, Cr.P.C. deals with joinder of charges in warrant trials, not summons cases as laid down in the case of Municipal Committee, Barnala v. Ram Lubhaya Kakar, 1982 (2) CLR 690. But there is no prohibition in the Code or in the Negotiable Instruments Act against the joint trial of two similar offences under Section 138 of the Act. Rather on the parity of reasoning, there appears to be no reason why joint trial of similar offences cannot be ordered in summons cases. In the case of K. Gobindarraj v. Ashwin Barai, I (1999) CCR 294=1998 CRLJ 22, Madras High Court has held that accused may be tried at one trial if different cheques issued in one year were dishonoured on the same date. In the present case, two cheques were issued within a span of one year and were presented for encashment and were dishonoured on the same date. Parties are common and evidence in the two complaint cases will also be common. Under these circumstances, I think the impugned order does not suffer from any illegal infirmity. Moreover the impugned order does not have the effect of finally deciding any issue involved in the case nor it brings any proceedings to culmination. It is purely interlocutory in nature. Therefore, in view of Section 397(2), Cr.P.C. this revision is not maintainable. In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
