HITESH NAGPAL Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition under Section 482 read with Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is to the orders dated 23rd October 2007 and 29th January 2008 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Delhi in the Criminal Complaint Case titled ''Lord Krishna Bank v. Hitesh Mohan Nagpal".

(2.) THE Respondent No.2 Lord Krishna Bank, which has since been amalgamated with Centurion Bank Ltd. and which in turn has been amalgamated with HDFC Bank Ltd., filed five separate criminal complaints against the petitioner in relation to dishonour of several cheques. In C.C. Nos. 458/1, 459/1, 460/1 and 462/1, the complaint was in respect of three dishonoured cheques each whereas C.C. No. 461/1 was in respect of one dishonoured cheque. All these cheques were in the sum of Rs. 3 lakhs each except one cheque No. 911543 (which is one of the cheques mentioned in C.C. No. 459/1) which was for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ -. The said cheques were dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Five separate orders dated 25th October 2005 were passed by the learned MM in these complaints summoning the petitioner for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

(3.) THE arguments of Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner have been heard at great length. According to him, there should be a single trial for the dishonour of all the cheques for only then the punishment, if any, awarded to the petitioner can be directed to run concurrently. According to him, if there are five separate complaints and separate trials, the sentence, if any, in each of those complaints could be directed to run consecutively and this would greatly prejudice the petitioner. He refers to the illustrations under Section 220 CrPC and in particular to the sentence at the end of the illustrations (a) to (h) which states: ''The separate charges referred to in illustrations (a) to (h) respectively may be tried at the same time ''. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeshwara Rao, 1963 Cri. L.J. 671 and Adnan Bilal Mulla v. State of Maharashtra : 2006 Cri LJ 564 (Bom); Ravinder Pal Singh v. State, 1993 JCC 219; Smarty Machra v. State, 2007 (2) JCC 1570 and Raja Dayanand v. State, 2004 (3) JCC 1886. Mr. Aggarwal also refers to Section 31 CrPC read with Section 71 IPC which deals with the question of consecutive sentences.