VANI AGRO ENTERPRISES vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
2019 Latest Caselaw 904 SC

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 904 SC
Judgement Date : Sep/2019

Headnote :
IMPORTANT

Dishonour of cheque - The Cr.P.C. does not allow for the consolidation of separate cases arising from the same notice.

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 219 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 Consolidation of cases - Permissibility - Four cheques issued to the respondent allegedly bounced, leading the respondent to send a single notice. Four separate complaints were filed. The complainant argued that the four cases should be consolidated, citing Section 219 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, which states that since the offenses occurred within one year, they should be tried together. However, even if this provision is invoked, there must be two trials, as no more than three cases can be tried together, even if they occurred within the same year.

[Para 3]

B. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 219 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138 Consolidation of cases - Permissibility - The argument presented is that since only one notice was issued, four separate trials should not occur. However, the Cr.P.C. does not provide for the consolidation of cases.

[Para 4]

Before :- Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 587-590 of 2010. D/d. 5.9.2019.

Vani Agro Enterprises - Appellants

Versus

State of Gujarat & Anr. - Respondents

For the Appellants :- Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Mr. Ankit Seth, Ms. Himadri Haksar, and Ms. Minakshi Vij, Advocates.

For the Respondents :- Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Mr. A. Rajarajan, Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Choudhary, Mr. Gurkamal Hora and Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocates.

ORDER

Deepak Gupta, J. - The appellant herein is alleged to have issued four cheques to the respondent no.2 which allegedly bounced. The respondent no.2 sent one notice in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments At, 1881 with regard to bouncing of all the four cheques. Thereafter, complaints were filed in the year 1999 and these complaints have dragged on for 20 years only on the application of the appellant herein that all the four complaints should be consolidated and heard together.

2. Whether these cases had been heard together or separately, they would have been decided by now only because of the interim proceedings, even the evidence has not been recorded.

3. The main ground raised is that in terms of section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 since the offences took place during the period of one year, the cases should be dealt together. Even if section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was to apply, there have to be two trials because not more than three cases can be tried together even if they occurred in one year.

4. The only other contention is that since one notice has been issued, four separate trials should not take place and one trial should take place. There is no provision of consolidation of cases in the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. The only relief that can be granted to the appellant is that we direct the Trial Magistrate to fix all the four cases on one date so that it is convenient to both the parties to attend the hearing of all the four cases on one date.

6. It shall be open to the trial Court to record the evidence in the manner it feels like. Since the original complaints were filed in the year 1999, we direct the Magistrate to fix day to day hearing in the matters and dispose of these complaints latest by 31.12.2019.

7. In terms of the above, the appeals are disposed of.