PUTTANAGOUDA Vs. KUBERGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in two cases - C.C. No.2216/2021 and C.C. No.2215/2021 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal. Respondent is the complainant in C.C. No.2215/2021. Sri Channabasappa S/o Rudrappa Devihosur is the complainant in C.C. No.2216/2021. The petitioner moved an application before the trial Court under Ss. 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code') for a single trial of the two cases, since according to the petitioner, the alleged offences in the two cases were committed within a span of one year. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application holding that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.123/2022 and same came to be dismissed as not maintainable. The present petition is filed praying to set aside the order dtd. 7/11/2022 passed in CC No.2215/2021 wherein the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 219 of Cr.P.C. came to be rejected.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) Sec. 219 postulates that 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. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Magistrate ought to have allowed the application in view of the unambiguous provisions contained in Sec. 219 of the Code. It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the offence alleged against the petitioner in the two cases is one and the same viz., under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Referring to the issuance of the two cheques in the two complaints, it is contended by the learned counsel that an offence of the same kind was allegedly committed by the petitioner within a space of 12 months. Though the complainants in the two cases are different, the offence being of the same kind, the learned Magistrate ought to have allowed the applications.