9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of cheque within 15 days of receipt of notice issued within 30 days of dishonour of cheque. Prior to aforesaid period, there is no cause of action to complainant to prefer a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. Different cheques, may be issued for discharging the liability, arising out of one and same transaction, are separate entities and dishonour of each and every cheque gives a right to complainant to issue notice to drawer in terms of Section 138 of NI Act and on failure to make payment within period prescribed in Section 138 of NI Act entitles the complainant to file a complaint with respect to such dishonour of cheque - Dishonour of different cheques and non-payment of that amount after receipt of notice constitutes a different offence. Therefore, complainant has right to file and maintain separate complaint for dishonour of each and every cheque on failure to make payment by payer after receipt of notice under Section 138 of NI Act. In present case, Notice of Accusation has already been put to accused in both complaints and complainant has already combined three cheques in one case and two cheques in another case and has filed only two complaints with respect to fiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity towards amount due on account of payment of goods purchased by her from shop of complainant i.e. M/s. Fashion Point Boutique. On presentation, all these cheques have been dishonoured. 4. Two even dated separate legal notices, dated 14.7.2017, were sent by and on behalf of complainant to accused in terms of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (in short 'NI Act') which were received back unclaimed on 26.7.2017. One notice was with respect to two cheques issued by accused to liquidate her liability of financial assistance, whereas, another notice was with respect to three cheques issued by accused for discharging her liability for payment of goods purchased by her from shop of complainant. 5. Complainant preferred two separate complaints under Sections 138 and 142 of NI Act referred supra. 6. Accused preferred an application to charge with and try the accused at one trial in terms of Sections 219 and 220 of Cr.P.C. The said application was opposed by complainant by filing reply. After taking into consideration the averments made in application and reply and also submissions of learned counsel for parties, trial Court has rejected the application. It has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at, 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. 220. Trial for more than one offence-(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of section 212 or in sub-section (1) of section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. (3) If the acts alleged constitut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e transaction but the Supreme Court has upheld the separation of trial by Sessions Court by observing that even though joint trial is permissible under Cr.PC, but, still there is no illegality or irregularity in holding the separate trials. 14. In Ranchhod Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1965 SC 1248, it has been held by the Supreme Court that where, under Cr.PC, an accused may be charged with and tried at one trial for commission of the same kind of offences committed within a period of 12 months for any number of such offences not exceeding three, but has been tried separately, there is nothing illegal about it as provision for charging with and trying together is only an enabling provision and same view has been expressed with respect to offences committed in due course of the same transaction which may be triable at one trial but tried separately, by observing that Section dealing with such provision is also an enabling Section. 15. In Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1999 SC 211 also, the Supreme Court has held that provision of Section 220 Cr.PC for joint trial of different offences is only enabling provision and Court may or may not tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
