- (1.) These three criminal revisions under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., are directed against the order dated 11.7.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Criminal Cases No.75/02, 76/02 and 77/02 respectively, whereby the trial court framed the charges against the petitioner in all the three cases for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( for short 'the Act' hereinafter) and under Sections 420, 120-B IPC. Since all the three revision petitions involve common question of facts and law and by the same party, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are heard together and decided.
(2.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when an offence under Section 138 of the Act is made out then no offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC are made out, therefore, the court below fell in error in framing charges for the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.
(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the non-petitioners supported the judgment and order impugned and contended that on account of dishonour of cheque not only the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, but if the averments in the complaint show dishonest intention on the part of the accused as also criminal conspiracy, then apart from the offence under Section 138 of the Act, the offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC are prima-facie made out and the trial court noticing enough material came to the conclusion that there is ground to presume that the petitioner committed the offence under Section 138 of the Act as also offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. Learned Additional Advocate General has relied on Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in M/s. OPTS Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of A.P. (FB) 2001 Cri. L.J. 1489, in Smt. Sosamma Vs. Rajendran and Others 1993 Cri. L.J. 2196 and a decision of this Court in Vishnu Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan 2005 (2) R.Cr.D. 76 (Raj.).;