ORDER : The accused in CC Nos.659, 660, 1009, 1010, 1011 of 2008 on the file of the JMFC (V Court), Mangaluru, is in Revision Petition challenging the validity of the judgment of conviction, confirmed in Criminal Appeal Nos.131, 132, 133, 134 and 135 of 2012. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the Revision Petition are as under : Five private complaints came to be filed contending that accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short]. It is contended that in respect of the dues payable by the accused to the complainant, following cheques were issued : CC No. Cheque No. Date Amount in Rs. 659/2008 795778 22.10.2007 14,500 660/2008 795780 31.10.2007 13,726 1009/2008 797272 6.11.2007 13,978 1010/2008 797273 17.11.2007 13,840 1011/2008 797271 8.11.2007 14,686 The cheques on presentation came to be dishonoured with an endorsement "insufficient funds". Complainant issued statutory legal notices calling upon the accused to make the payment as per the cheques issued. The Notices came to be returned with an endorsement 'not claimed'. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the complaints. The Trial Court after recording the sworn statement, took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused. 3. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and plea was recorded and as the accused did not plead guilty, trial was held. The learned Magistrate for the sake of convenience, clubbed all the cases and recorded a common evidence and disposed of the same by a common judgment dated 27.09.2014. The complainant in lieu of his examination in chief filed affidavit re-iterating the complaint averments and in all marked 30 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-30. Accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.PC., was recorded wherein the accused denied all the incriminatory materials that were put to him. It is also pertinent to note that the accused failed to lead any oral evidence on his behalf. 4. The learned Magistrate on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, after hearing the parties convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and in respect of all the cheques, a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- was ordered with a default sentence of three months. 4. The learned Magistrate on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, after hearing the parties convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and in respect of all the cheques, a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- was ordered with a default sentence of three months. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant and a sum of Rs.5,000/- is defrayed as prosecution expenses to the State. 5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the accused preferred appeals in Criminal Appeal Nos.131, 132, 133, 134 and 135 of 2012, referred to supra. Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge after securing the records and hearing the parties, dismissed the appeals and confirmed the conviction and order of sentence. It is those judgments, which are the subject matter of this Revision Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that both the courts have grossly erred in convicting the accused holding that the complainant has proved the guilt of the Revision Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner further contended that there was a wrong marking of the legal notices issued in four cases and only in one case, the legal notice was properly marked which has been ignored by the learned Magistrate as well as the first Appellate Court and therefore, the conviction is bad and prayed for allowing the Revision Petition. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the Trial Court has properly taken into consideration the relevant materials on record and has allowed the just compensation and therefore, it does not require any further indulgence from this Court and prayed for dismissal of the Revision Petition. 8. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points would arise for consideration : (i) Whether the finding recorded by the learned Magistrate, which was confirmed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi in Criminal Appeal Nos.131 to 135 of 2012 is erroneous? (ii) Whether the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, confirmed by the first Appellate Court is excessive? 9. Answer to the above points are in the Negative for the following : REASONS 10. In the case on hand, issuance of cheque and the signature found in the cheque are not in dispute. (ii) Whether the sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, confirmed by the first Appellate Court is excessive? 9. Answer to the above points are in the Negative for the following : REASONS 10. In the case on hand, issuance of cheque and the signature found in the cheque are not in dispute. Admittedly, the cheques are the subject matter of five different cases in CC Nos.659, 660, 1009, 1010 and 1011 of 2008. On presentation, the cheques came to be dishonoured with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Thereafter, the complainant issued statutory notices in respect of all the dishonoured cheques calling upon the accused to make good the payments covered under the cheques. Notices were returned with an endorsement 'not claimed'. Since the statutory notice returned with an endorsement not claimed, complainant was constrained to file a private complaint seeking action against the accused in respect of the dishonoured cheques. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence alleged against the accused in each of the cases and directed issuance of summons. On receipt of the summons, accused appeared before the Court and plea was recorded separately in respect of each of the cases. Accused pleaded not guilty. It is from that stage, the matters were clubbed and common trial was held in respect of five different cases referred to supra. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence on behalf of the complainant proceeded to record the accused statement as contemplated u/s.313 Cr.PC., Accused denied all the incriminatory circumstances that were put to him and did not choose to lead any evidence on his behalf. As such, with the available materials on record, after hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and taking note of the amounts covered under the cheques, convicted the accused to pay a fine of Rs.1,05,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months in respect of all five cases. Out of the fine amount of Rs.1,05,000/-, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be appropriated towards the expenses of the State and Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of Cr.PC. 11. Out of the fine amount of Rs.1,05,000/-, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was ordered to be appropriated towards the expenses of the State and Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 of Cr.PC. 11. It is pertinent to note that before the learned Magistrate, the accused did not oppose holding a common trial in respect of all the cases which were filed separately in respect of each of the dishonoured cheques. It is also pertinent to note that at the time of marking of the documents, the counsel for accused was all along present and cross examined the accused. No doubt there is a mistake while marking the copy of the legal notice in respect of each of the cases inasmuch as the legal notice pertaining to a particular cheque has been marked in respect of four dishonoured cheques as is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the complainant in response to such a submission contended that it is the mistake of the staff of the court (Bench clerk), for which, the complainant need not be penalized. 13. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction, the accused preferred five appeals for five different cheques on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, secured the records, heard the arguments and confirmed the judgment of the learned Magistrate. While answering Point No.1, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge has observed that even though several grounds were raised, the counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments in respect of three points, which are as under : (i) The cheques in question do not tally with the demand notices. (ii) No account books were produced to establish that they are exceeded to the legally recoverable debt. Therefore, adverse inference was required to be drawn against the complainant. (iii) The material alterations found in the cheques were not taken note of by the learned Magistrate. The learned Principal District Judge discussed all the three points in detail in the judgment dated 27.9.2014 and negated all the three contentions by recording appropriate reasons. 14. Therefore, adverse inference was required to be drawn against the complainant. (iii) The material alterations found in the cheques were not taken note of by the learned Magistrate. The learned Principal District Judge discussed all the three points in detail in the judgment dated 27.9.2014 and negated all the three contentions by recording appropriate reasons. 14. Before this Court, the counsel for the revision petitioner, in addition to the three grounds that were urged before the first appellate court also pressed into service applicability of Section 219 of Cr.PC., and contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate in holding a common trial in respect of five different dishonoured cheques is incorrect and thus, the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate convicting the accused is illegal and sought for allowing the Revision Petition. 15. This court meticulously perused the records in the light of the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties. 16. For sake of convenience, the issue of applicability of Section 219 Cr.PC., to the case on hand is taken up first as according to the revision petitioner, said contention goes to the very root of the matter. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of revision petitioner, it is just and necessary to cull out Section 219 of Cr.PC., which reads thus : "219. Three offences of same kind within a 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. (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 same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (45 of 1860) or of any special or local laws: PROVIDED that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (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 attempt is an offence.” Admittedly, the trial before the learned Magistrate in respect of the dishonoured cheques is a summary trial. Whether, Section 219 Cr.PC., could be made applicable in respect of a trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is no longer a res integra. In this regard, this Court gainfully placed reliance on the following judgments: 17. In TiruchandoorMuruhan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. Madanlal Ramkumar Cotton and General Merchants, 2000 SCC OnLine Kar 699 : ILR 2000 Kar 5000 it has been held as under : "6. In so far as the important question raised for consideration in this petition that the provisions of Section 219 Cr. P.C. is attracted to the facts of the case is concerned, it is contended that cause of action for the complainant arose only after service of notice to the accused. It is pointed out that the complainant has issued a single notice calling upon the accused by way of demand to pay the cheque amount within 15 plays from the date of service of notice and the accused failed to pay the cheque amount within the time stipulated under Section 138(b) of the Act and therefore the complainant filed a complaint within one month from the date of service of notice which is well within time. There is no bar for lodging a complaint for initiation of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact it is not to his disadvantage but it is an advantage that a single complaint is lodged against the accused by the complainant. The cause of action giving raise to a complaint is upon the service of notice contemplated under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and not upon the dishonour of the cheques and therefore the contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the provisions of Section 219 Cr. P.C. are not applicable to the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be accepted." 18. Therefore there is no bar to lodge a single complaint in respect of more than one offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. That it is to the advantage of the accused and not to his disadvantage. Further, it is held that Section 219 of the Cr.P.C., would not apply to proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. 19. Further, it is pertinent to note that question of applicability of section 219 Cr.P.C., was not urged by the accused. 20. Notwithstanding that the petitioner seek to raise more than one legal contention in this revision petition, a point that is taken up for consideration is, whether the trial court could have conducted a common trial in respect of five distinct complaints filed by the respondent against the petitioner, alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, in respect of separate cheques of varying amounts, issued by the petitioner. On this aspect of matter, there is divergence of opinion among several High Courts. But the legal principle governing the point is no longer res integra. 21. In case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 663 Hon’ble Apex Court while addressing a similar situation where complaints alleging offences punishable under Section 138 NI Act, were being filed in multiple jurisdictions, sometimes deliberately, causing harassment and prejudice to the drawers of the cheques, has made certain pertinent observations as under : "4. It may be noted that when the offence was inserted in the statute in 1988, it carried the provision for imprisonment up to one year, which was revised to two years following the amendment to the Act in 2002. It is quite evident that the legislative intent was to provide a strong criminal remedy in order to deter the worryingly high incidence of dishonour of cheques. While the possibility of imprisonment up to two years provides a remedy of a punitive nature, the provision for imposing a "fine which may extent to twice the amount of the cheque" serves a compensatory purpose. What must be remembered is that the dishonour of a cheque can be best described as a regulatory offence that has been created to serve the public interest in ensuring the reliability of these instruments. The impact of this offence is usually confined to the private parties involved in commercial transactions. 5. Invariably, the provision of a strong criminal remedy has encouraged the institution of a large number of cases that are relatable to the offence contemplated by Section 138 of the Act. So much so, that at present a disproportionately large number of cases involving the dishonour of cheques is choking our criminal justice system, especially at the level of Magistrates' Courts. As per the 213th Report of the Law Commission of India, more than 38 lakh cheque bouncing cases were pending before various courts in the country as of October 2008. This is putting an unprecedented strain on our judicial system.” 22. Applying the above legal principles enunciated to the facts of the case on hand, it is pertinent to note that when the cases were clubbed before the learned Magistrate and a common trial was held, accused did not object. Moreover, before the first appellate court, the accused did not press into service the applicability of Section 219 of Cr.PC.,. Before this court for the first time, such an objection has been raised on behalf of the accused. 23. In view of the legal principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgments, the applicability of Section 219 of Cr.PC., to the case on hand would not arise at all and therefore, the arguments addressed on behalf of the accused in respect of five dishonoured cheques, a common trial has been held resulting in grave miscarriage of justice cannot be countenanced in law. 24. 24. The next point that is urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that there is a mistake in marking of the legal notice in respect of five dishonoured cheques and therefore, there is no proper notice at all to the accused. Hence, the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has not been committed by the accused. 25. This argument also is without any merit whatsoever inasmuch as it is not the case of the accused that no legal notice was issued in respect of dishonor of the wrong marking of the cheques. It is pertinent to note that though this aspect of the matter has been dealt with in detail by the learned Judge of the first appellate court. More over, it is a mistake on the part of the official of the court while marking the legal notice issued by the complainant. It is not the thing that there is no legal notice issued, but in the case on hand, legal notices were duly issued in respect of the dishonoured cheques properly mentioning the correct number of the cheques in the legal notice. It is while marking of the legal notice in respect of the dishonoured cheques involved in five different cases, there is a mistake i.e., crept in by the official of the court. For the mistake that has been committed by the official of the court, the complainant cannot be penalized as is rightly argued on behalf of the complainant. 26. However, all the legal notices have been returned with an endorsement 'not claimed'. Therefore, it should not lie in the mouth of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there was no proper notice. Even if the notices were not claimed by the accused, there was no impediment for the accused to make good the amounts covered in the dishonoured cheques for which legal notices were issued at the inception of the trial. On the contrary, on flimsy grounds, the revision petitioner is protracting the proceedings in not paying the amounts covered under the dishonoured cheques. It is also pertinent to note that the cheques were dishonoured in the year 2007. Therefore, there was no objection raised by the learned counsel for the accused at the time of marking of the cheques. On the contrary, on flimsy grounds, the revision petitioner is protracting the proceedings in not paying the amounts covered under the dishonoured cheques. It is also pertinent to note that the cheques were dishonoured in the year 2007. Therefore, there was no objection raised by the learned counsel for the accused at the time of marking of the cheques. For all these things, there is no defence evidence on behalf of the accused to rebut the presumption available to the complainant u/s.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that the mistakes that are pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner when the cases are trivial in nature which would not affect the case of the complainant so as to grant the benefit to the accused. 27. The finding that has been recorded by the learned Magistrate has been held by the first appellate court insofar as the legally recoverable debt is concerned based on the materials available on record. Initial burden has been discharged by the complainant. In this regard, and it is for the accused to rebut the presumption in the absence of any such material placed by the accused. This court does not find any error patent on record or improper exercise of the jurisdiction nor there is any legality in passing the impugned orders of the learned Magistrate and the first appellate court so as to necessitate this court to interfere with the impugned orders in the revisional jurisdiction. 28. Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that none of the grounds urged on behalf of the revision petitioner would require interference by this court and therefore, the points are answered accordingly and following order is passed: The Revision Petition sans merit and accordingly dismissed.