Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1411 (AP)

STEEL CITY SECURITIES LIMITED v. P. D. V. PRASAD

2006-11-14

K.C.BHANU

body2006
( 1 ) THESE criminal petitions are filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 29-7-2005 in Crl. M. P. Nos. 2254, 2257, 2260, 2259, 2258, 2256, 2255 of 2005 in c. C. Nos. 644, 642, 638, 641, 640, 639, 637, 643 of 2002 respectively on the file of the court of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, hyderabad. ( 2 ) SINCE the parties are same and as common question of law is involved in all these petitions, they can be disposed of together by this Common Order. ( 3 ) THE petitioner herein is the complainant and the 1sl respondent herein is the accused in all the above C. Cs. ( 4 ) ORIGINALLY, the above criminal petitions have been filed in the above calendar cases, which were filed for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act (for short the Act) before the trial Court invoking the provisions under section 220 Cr. P. C. seeking to club all these cases for joint trial stating that the transactions arose out of the ledger account 6787 under the running account with the accused. But different cheques were alleged to be issued in partial discharge of the total liability. ( 5 ) THE definition of Section 220 Cr. P. C. is that 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 maybe charged with, and tried at one trial, for every such offence. But that stage has been over. ( 6 ) SECTION 220 Cr. P. C. is only enabling provision where the Court can try several charges in one trial. But when several complaints in criminal cases were filed they cannot be clubbed together. Section 220 cr. P. C. has no application at all in view of the fact that different complaints were filed and cognizance in all the cases was taken under section 138 of the Act. But when several complaints in criminal cases were filed they cannot be clubbed together. Section 220 cr. P. C. has no application at all in view of the fact that different complaints were filed and cognizance in all the cases was taken under section 138 of the Act. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel forthe petitioner relied upon the decision in City Automobiles, vijayawada and another v. J. K. Industries limited, Hyderabad and another1 wherein it was held that several cheques issued by the same person in respect of different purchases at different times found dishonoured they constitute separate offences, despite the fact that a single common notice of dishonour was given forall the dishonoured cheques and filing of complaintsseparatelyforeachdishonboured cheque is not therefore bad. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, though the transactions ariseand out of the ledger account 6787 under the running account with the accused, but different cheques were alleged to be issued in partial discharge of the total liability of Rs. 14,21,909. 86 due as on 7-10-2001. The cause of action that return of cheques, giving a notice, receipt of notice are entirely different from one case to another clubbing of two criminal cases is unknown to criminal law unless the case comes under section 220 Cr. P. C. The complaint under section 138 of the Act is under a special enactment and the provisions of the Act will prevail over the general Provisions of Criminal procedure Code in view of the language employed under Section 142 (1) of the Act which states that not withstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. So the analogy under Section 220 cr. P. C. is not applicable to the complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act in the present case. Henceclubbing of the complaints is nothing but abuse of process of Court. ( 9 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the above decision (supra-1), I am of the opinion that clubbing of the criminal cases is unknown to criminal law. ( 10 ) IN the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the order dated 29-7-2005 in crl. M. P. Nos. 2254, 2257, 2260, 2259, 2258, 2256,2255 of 2005 in CC Nos. ( 10 ) IN the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the order dated 29-7-2005 in crl. M. P. Nos. 2254, 2257, 2260, 2259, 2258, 2256,2255 of 2005 in CC Nos. 644,642,638, 641, 640, 639, 637, 643 of 2002 respectively on the file of the Court of the IV Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad is set aside.