K. Govindaraj vs Aswhin Barai

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Ss. 482 and 483, Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 28-3-1995 made in Crl. Revision

Petition No. 15/94 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge at Pondicherry with reference to C.C. No. 230/92 on the file of Judicial Magistrate,

Pondicherry.

The material allegations in the petition are as follows :- The respondent had preferred a complaint against the petitioner for an offence under S.

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the Judicial Magistrate, Poindicherry in C.C. No. 230 of 1992 and the learned Magistrate had

framed charges against the petitioners. The petitioner aggrieved by that had preferred a Criminal Revision Petition No. 15/94 before the Principal

Sessions Judge, Pondicherry under S. 397(1) Cr.P.C. to revise the charges framed by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Pondicherry and also to

discharge the accused from the case in C.C. No. 230/92 on the file of the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Pondicherry. The Judicial I Class

Magistrate, Pondicherry had violated S. 219, Cr.P.C. in as much as the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of offences pertaining to the

dishonour of six cheques in one single complaint filed in the case referred supra. The same is not only contrary to law but also it is illegal. The

learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry while disposing the Criminal Revision Petition 15/94 dated 28-3-1995 in his order had dismissed

the Revision petition filed by the petitioner and also held that the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Pondicherry did not violate S. 219, Cr.P.C.

On hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the point that arises for determination in this petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to

the relief prayed for in this petition under Ss. 482 and 483, Cr.P.C.

Point :- The learned counsel for the petitioner seriously contended that the respondent has filed a complaint before the trial Magistrate on the

basis of six dishonoured cheques, and that cannot be done because the dishonour of each cheque will give a separate cause of action for filing a

complaint under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and in all the three dishonoured cheques can be brought into the penal action under S. 138

of Negotiable Instruments Act, and this is made clear in the provision of S. 219, Cr.P.C., and in those circumstances, the order passed by the

Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry in Crl. Revision Petition No. 15/94 dated 28-3-1995 must be set aside.

The above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner are untenable for the following reasons. The respondent filed a private complaint

against the petitioner for an offence under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of six dishonoured cheques. Section 219(1) of

Cr.P.C. states that 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. In the present case a reading of the complaint by the respondent before the lower Court filed along with the typed-set of

papers in this petition, revealed that six dishonoured cheques were given to the respondent in the months of September, October and November

1991 on various dates, i.e. within a period of twelve months.

However, in the complaint the respondent/complainant would state that the accused required him to present all these six cheques together on 24-

1-1992 and the complainant accordingly presented all the cheques together and they have been returned on the same date i.e. on 28-1-1992 with

an endorsement ""Payment Stopped"". Therefore each cheque will not give a separate cause of action in view of the request made by the

petitioner/accused herein to present all the cheques on a particular date which was done by the respondent/complainant in this case and so S.

219(1), Cr.P.C. is not attracted to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that the petitioner/accused in this case advised or instructed

the respondent/complainant to present all the cheques together on a single day i.e. on 24-1-1992 and all the cheques were together simultaneously

presented and all the cheques were returned on 28-1-1992 simultaneously with an endorsement ""payment stopped"" and therefore the offence

alleged to have been committed was in respect of single transaction and not in respect of different transactions.

Even otherwise S. 220(1) of Cr.P.C. states that if 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. In the present case though the giving

of six cheques by the petitioner/accused to the respondent/complainant may be on different dates but all those acts of giving these cheques were

merged together to form the same transaction viz., the presentation of all these cheques together on one particular day as requested by the

petitioner/accused herein. In other words even though different cheques were given on different dates, the presentation of all these cheques formed

the same transaction on the instruction of the petitioner/accused herein given to the respondent/complainant. Further the demand was also made by

the respondent complainant on the dishonouring of the cheques by giving one lawyer''s notice and not several demands made by the

respondent/complainant for the payment of the dishonoured cheques. In those circumstances I am of the view that the petitioner/accused herein

may be charged and tried at one trial for several such offence because the series of acts are so inter-linked or inter-connected together so as to

form the same transaction of dishonouring the cheques on a single day on the presentation of the same as requested by the petitioner/accused

herein.

Even ignoring this aspect, Section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. will come into play with reference to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is not in

dispute that the petitioner/accused preferred a revision petition before the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry to revise the charges framed by

the Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry and discharge the accused in the case in C.C. No. 230/92 and the same was dismissed by the Principal

Sessions Judge, Pondicherry on 28-3-1995 in Crl.R.P. No. 15/94. Section 397(3) states that if an application under this Section has been made

by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of

them. In other words when the earlier Revision Petition under S. 397(1) was filed, there cannot be a second Revision petition by the same

accused, and this provision of law cannot be circumvented by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 482 of Cr.P.C. This

view gains support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepti alias Arati Rai Vs. Akhil Rai and Others, and at the end of para 4 it was held

as follows :-

It (High Court) should have also applied its mind to the aspect that second Revision application, after dismissal of the first one by Sessions Court

is not maintainable and that the inherent power under S. 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by

the Code"".

Therefore the petitioner/accused herein is specifically barred under S. 397(3) of Cr.P.C. for maintaining this application under S. 482 of Cr.P.C. to

invoke the inherent power of the High Court to set aside the order dated 28-3-1995 in Crl. Revision Case No. 15/94 and consequently to revise

the charges framed by the Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry and to discharge the accused from the case in C.C. No. 230/92.

Even brushing aside this aspect as covered under S. 397(3), Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused herein has come forward with an application under

S. 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court at an earlier point of time in Crl.O.P. No. 16274/92 and the same has been suppressed by the petitioner

herein and so the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief under S. 482 of Cr.P.C. A perusal of the copy of the order passed in Crl.O.P. No.

16274/92 filed by the petitioner/accused herein before this Court filed along with the typed set of papers by the Respondent-complainant would

reveal that the petitioner-accused herein made an attempt earlier to call for the records in C.C. No. 230/92 on the file of Judicial Magistrate,

Pondicherry and quash the same, and Justice Pratap Singh, J. on considering the allegations made in the complaint and on considering the

contentions raised before him, came to the conclusion that the complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold and consequently dismissed the

Crl.O.P. filed under S. 428, Cr.P.C. So this present petition under S. 482, Cr.P.C. is the second attempt made by the petitioner/accused herein,

and at no stretch of imagination he can seek the remedy from this Court under S. 482, Cr.P.C. once again.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am to hold that the petitioner-accused is not entitled to the relief prayed for in this

petition under S. 482 and 483, Cr.P.C., and so this petition has to be dismissed, and consequently I answer this point as against the petitioner.

In the result the petition is dismissed. Consequently the stay petition in Crl.M.P. No. 2100/95 is dismissed and the interim stay is vacated.

Petition dismissed.