Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1305 (AP)

Dinesh C. Jain v. Sidhartha Impex, Hyderabad

2012-12-31

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

body2012
ORDER 1. This criminal revision case is directed against the order, dated 3.12.2012, passed in CC No.204 of 2012 on the file of X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate ordered for trial in CC Nos.204, 205 and 206 of 2012 simultaneously. 2. The petitioner is the accused and the 1st respondent is the complainant in CC No.204 of 2012. The accused filed Crl. MP No.1961 of 2012 under Section 219 Cr.P.C. for clubbing CC Nos.205 and 206 of 2012 with CC No.204 of 2012 and conduct common trial. The learned X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, by order, dated 22.11.2012, directed for common trial in all the three Calendar Cases since the parties as well as the offence in all the three cases are one and the same. For better appreciation, 1 may refer the relevant portion of the order, dated 22.11.2012 and it is thus: "Heard the Counsel for both parties. Perused the record in CC No.204/2012, CC No.205/ 2012 and CC No.206 of 2012 in which accused is the one and the same person and the causes of action for transactions had been taken place in the same year 2012 and the legal notice issued on 28.2.2012 in all three cases. During the course of hearing the Counsel for petitioner/accused read the provision of law under Section 219 Cr.P.C. which contemplates as hereunder Section 219: "Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together (1) 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. (2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1960), or of any special or local law : Provided that, 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." Though these cases are filed under special Acts, but sub-section (2) of Section 219 Cr. P.C. clearly says that either the offence may be Indian Penal Code or any Special or local law. From it is clear that there is no embargo to club together for common trial in all three cases as the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in all cases and causes of action during the same year against the same accused. Hence, I am inclined to allow this petition and the petition is allowed accordingly. No costs." Subsequently, the learned X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, by order, dated 3.12.2012, directed for trial of all the three cases viz., CC Nos.204, 205 and 206 of 2012 simultaneously. The said order is assailed in this revision case. 3. Heard Sri G. Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P. Kamalakar, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/complainant. 4. As seen from the material placed on record, the learned X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, passed an order, dated 22.11.2012, in Crl. MP No. 196l of 2012 for trial in all the three cases together. The complainant did not choose to question the said order. But, the learned X Special Magistrate without noticing the order, dated 22.11.2012, passed in Crl. MP No.1961 of 2012, proceeded to order trial in all the three cases simultaneously. The docket order, dated 3.12.2012, is contrary to the order, dated 22.11.2012, passed in Crl. MP No.1961 of 2012. 5. The complainant did not choose to question the said order. But, the learned X Special Magistrate without noticing the order, dated 22.11.2012, passed in Crl. MP No.1961 of 2012, proceeded to order trial in all the three cases simultaneously. The docket order, dated 3.12.2012, is contrary to the order, dated 22.11.2012, passed in Crl. MP No.1961 of 2012. 5. Accordingly, the criminal revision case is allowed setting aside the order, dated 3.12.2012, passed in CC No.204 of 2012 on the file of X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad. 6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/complainant seeks a direction to the trial Court to expedite the trial in CC Nos.204, 205 and 206 of 2012. 7. In that view of the matter, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the CC Nos.204, 205 and 206 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.