SHANTHI FORTUNE (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. MUKKA SEA FOODS INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are heard and disposed of together as the same are preferred by the very petitioners against the very respondent and are preferred challenging a common judgment.

(2.) The respondent was the complainant before the trial court and sought to prosecute the petitioners herein for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (Hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act', for brevity), in respect of the several cheques issued by the petitioners in favour of the respondent in the course of business transactions between the petitioners and the respondent, which were said to have been dishonoured.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that Section 219 of the CrPC stipulates that when a person is accused of more than one offence of the same kind, which are committed within a time span of 12 months, from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, the accused may be charged with and tried for any number of offences not exceeding three. The general rule is that the accused should be charged in respect of each distinct offence alleged to have been committed by him and he is entitled to a separate trial with respect to each of such charge in accordance with the provisions of Section 218 of the CrPC. The purpose of the statute is clear that if more than three charges are tried by a single trial, the accused is likely to be bewildered and hence the legislature abjures the court from joinder of charges of more than three offences in a single trial. The learned counsel would also contend that the courts below have failed to examine the prejudice caused to the petitioners on account of a common trial having been held in respect of 18 distinct complaints that were filed. It is contended that reliance placed on Exhibit P-9, a letter dated 6.10.2008, said to have been issued by the petitioners admitting the debt and undertaking to pay the same by 31.10.2008, is untenable, as the same had not been brought to the attention of the accused in compliance with Section 313(1)(b) of the CrPC, in the accused never having been questioned with reference to the same as mandated by the said provision.