SARRAF, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have filed these ten petitions against the order dated 5. 6. 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, Alwar whereby the revision petitions filed by the petitioners against the orders dated 23. 1. 2006 of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kathoomar dismissing the applications of the petitioners filed under Sections 219 and 220 Cr. P. C. , have been rejected.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Section 219 Cr. P. C. by its terms refers to the case of single accused and is not applicable where several persons are tried jointly. Moreover, under Section 219 Cr. P. C. only three transactions of one year can be clubbed together whereas in this case the number of offences are ten and it is illegal under this Section to charge a person at one trial with more than three acts. Under Section 220 Cr. P. C. also, the expression `by the same person' clearly indicates that where there are more accused than one this section is inapplicable. Apart from this the exception in this section is no more than an enabling provision and even departure from this section may not vitiate proceedings. Prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a prosecution under special law and a distinct separate offence and, therefore, it appears it is out side the scheme envisaged under Sections 219 and 220 Cr. P. C. because there is ample scope for causing prejudice to the petitioner if all the cases are tried jointly or in a consolidated manner as a single trial. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in these Misc. Petitions.
(3.) ALL the ten Misc. Petitions are dismissed accordingly. However, the trial Court is directed to fix as far as possible a common date in all the cases during trial for the convenience of the parties and this will also save the precious time of the Court as well as of the litigants. .;