JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - All the above revisions have been filed against the order dated 16.1.2003 of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in different complaint cases rejecting the prayer of the Petitioners to club the cases and try them in accordance with Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The facts giving rise to the present revisions are as follows: The Petitioner No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and has two industrial units at Rourkela. Petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of the said company. The opposite party is a public limited company carrying on business through out India. The Petitioner No. 1-company was purchasing various wire rods from the opposite party at Bhubaneswar Sales Office on credit basis and in between March, 1994 to March 2000 the opposite party had sold 6594 metric tons of wire rods valued at about Rs. 11.60 crores. Out of the said amount, the Petitioner No. 1-company had paid about Rs. 10.59 crores and the balance amount was outstanding for which the Petitioner No. 1-company had issued some post dated account payee cheques in favour of the opposite party signed by its Director. When the said cheques were presented before the Bank, they were dishonored with the endorsement "Exceeds Arrangements" which amounts to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, notices were given and due to non-payment of the amounts even after notices, the complaint cases were filed for each cheque. 3. From the averments made in the revisions, it appears that till today about 17 (seventeen) complaint cases have been filed for commission of offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in respect of 17 cheques. An application u/s 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the learned Magistrate praying therein to club the cases three at a time and try them after framing charge. The said petition having been rejected, the present revisions have been filed. 4. Shri Pangari, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners in all the revisions referring to Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure submitted 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, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. According to Shri Pangari, this provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure squarely applies to the facts of the present case and there is no reason for the learned Magistrate to reject such prayer. The learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party, on the other hand, contended that since the cases are to be tried as summons cases, no formal charge is required to be made and, therefore, Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application. 5. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for both the parties clearly indicate that the question that is to be decided by the Court, is whether Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has any application to the facts of the present case. Since a common question of law is involved in all the revisions, they are taken up together and disposed of in this judgment. 6. In order to examine the question raised, it is necessary to refer to punishment prescribed for commission of offence u/s 136 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act prescribes that for commission of offence under the said provision, a person can be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year (now two years after amendment) or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both. Section 2(w) and (x) of the Code of Criminal Procedure define summons-case and warrant-case. As per definition, warrant-case means, a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. Summons case as per definition means, a case relating to an offence, and not being a warrant case. The imprisonment prescribed for commission of offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act being not more than two years it has to be decided as per Chapter-XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 251 of the Code prescribes that in a summons-case when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. Since this provision clearly provides that for trial of a summons case by a Magistrate there is no necessity to frame a formal charge, in my view, Section 219 shall have no application as the language of Section 219 clearly provides 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. 7. I, therefore, do not find any illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned S.D.J.M. in the complaint cases. However, for the sake of convenience of the parties, I observe that as far as practicable the learned Magistrate shall keep all the complaint cases to one date so that a particular witness who is to be examined in all or some of the complaint cases can come to court once and dispose in whichever case he is required to depose. If such an arrangement is made by the learned Magistrate, it will save the parties from unnecessary expenditure in bringing the witnesses to Court for their examination and shall facillitate the learned Magistrate in disposing of the complaint cases early. 8. With the above observation, the revisions stand dismissed. 9. Revision dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed