MANOJ BITHALKAR Vs. P.K.RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of fact and law is involved in both the revisions and both arise from one & same criminal trial i.e. Criminal Complaint Case No.1512/2010, they have been clubbed together and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The applicant herein purchased a part of land from the non-applicant herein situate at Village Khamtarai amounting to Rs.13,60,000.00 for which agreement was executed between them on 27/5/2005 and some payment was also made and for the outstanding payment of Rs.5,44,000.00, eight different cheques on eight different dates were issued in favour of the non-applicant from 5/1/2006 to 30/1/2006. On 4/7/2006, the non-applicant deposited all the cheques in his bank which were got dishonoured on 5/7/2006 holding that 'account closed' and accordingly, legal notice was sent by the non-applicant to the applicant on 10/8/2006 which got returned on 14/8/2006. Accordingly, one common complaint was filed on 13/9/2006 by the non-applicant herein / complainant whereupon trial was conducted and the trial Court by judgment dtd. 31/10/2011 convicted the applicant under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also directed the applicant to pay compensation of Rs.5,44,000.00 to the non-applicant herein / complainant under Sec. 357(3) of the CrPC against which unsuccessful appeal was preferred by the applicant leading to filing of Criminal Revision No.86/2013, whereas, Criminal Revision No.688/2011 has been preferred to quash the judgment passed in appeal to the extent it relates to the direction to deposit 20% of 5,44,000/-, which was directed by the appellate Rs.Court to be deposited as interim compensation and which was not deposited by the applicant herein. Thus, Cr.Rev.No.688/2011 was filed for quashment of judgment dtd. 21/11/2011 passed by the appellate Court to the extent of depositing 20% of 5,44,000/- as Rs.interim compensation and Cr.Rev.No.86/2013 was filed for quashment of judgment dtd. 30/1/2013 passed by the trial Court. This is how both the revisions have been placed for consideration.

(3.) Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant herein / accused, would make a solitary submission that single complaint is not maintainable for dishonour of multiple cheques issued by the applicant on the same cause of action. He would further submit that eight different cheques issued by the applicant were dishonoured, therefore, eight complaints could have been filed and as such, single complaint was not maintainable which was not adverted to by the trial Court and therefore the judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside on that very count only.