Judgment :- KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. The grievance of the petitioner in this revision is that more than three instances have been clubbed together in a single transaction, which is contrary to the mandate under section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The respondent filed a complaint for an offence under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, before the VIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, in C. C. No. 7561 of 1990, against the petitioner, stating that the complainant sold and delivered fancy papers etc. on credit to the accused for Rs. 45, 813.16, for which the accused gave four cheques to the complainant, viz. (1) dated May 25, 1990, for Rs. 5, 000 (2) dated June 5, 1990, for Rs. 4, 570.85 (3) dated June 25, 1990, for Rs. 5, 000, and (4) dated July 5, 1990, for Rs. 3, 588.36, totalling to the tune of Rs. 18, 159.21, and that after due dates, the complainant presented the said cheques for realisation and the same have been dishonoured by the bank with the endorsement "exceeds arrangement" and that in spite of the statutory notice, the accused did not make the payment in time. This was taken on file by the learned VIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, for the above said offences, and questioned the accused on December 14, 1990. The accused pleaded not guilty. The question' put by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is as follows : This order is under challenge in this revision, contending that the four cheques relating to the four instances have been clubbed together in a single case and thereby, section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has been violated. For substantiating the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision reported in Ruby Leather Exports v. K. Venu [1994] 1 LW (Crl.) 34 ; 1995 (82) CC 776 , 1 Crimes 820 (Mad).In paragraph 37 of the above referred judgment, Arunachalam J. has held as follows (at page 796) : "The second ground, that there is patent violation of the provisions under section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in that more than three transactions within a year form part of this prosecution, will have to be upheld. On that ground, the impugned prosecution cannot be quashed. However, the respondent will have to choose on which of these five cheques, he would have the prosecution maintained. On that ground, the impugned prosecution cannot be quashed. However, the respondent will have to choose on which of these five cheques, he would have the prosecution maintained. That shall be stated before the concerned magistrate. Subject to this limited observation, on the second ground, this petition shall stand dismissed." I am entirely in agreement with this observation and accordingly. I direct the learned VIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, to comply with the provision of section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, by asking the complainant to choose, on which of these four cheques, he would have the prosecution maintained, and then go on with the trial and dispose the same as expeditiously as possible. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the learned VIIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras, dated December 14, 1990, in C. C. No. 7561 of 1990, is set aside and the matter is remanded with a direction to put a fresh question under section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to the complainant to state on which of the three cheques out of the four cheques mentioned in the complaint, he is going to choose to maintain the prosecution and then proceed with the trial. I also direct the Metropolitan Magistrate to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. The registry is directed to sent back the records forthwith.