(1.) AS common question of law and facts arise in these group of applications and they are between the same parties challenging the common order, all these Special Criminal Applications are disposed of by this common judgement and order.
(2.) FOUR different criminal complaints, being Criminal Case Nos. 3540 to 3543/1999, are filed by respondent no. 2 against the respective common petitioners in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Vadodara for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In the aforesaid complaints, applications came to be submitted by the respective common petitioners to consolidate all the complaints and to record only one common evidence. It appears that the respective petitioners made the aforesaid request in light of the provisions of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure submitting that for dishonour of four cheques, one common notice has been issued dated 20/04/1999 and, therefore, there would be only one cause of action and all the complaints are required to be consolidated and one common evidence is required to be recorded. The learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara vide order dated 05/08/2006 dismissed all the aforesaid applications below Exh. 28 and rejected the request of the respective petitioners to consolidate all the aforesaid criminal cases and to record one common evidence. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial Court in rejecting the aforesaid applications, respective petitioners preferred Criminal Revision Application Nos. 211/2006, 213/2006, 212/2006 and 214/2006, which came to be rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Vadodara dated 12/03/2007. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the applications submitted by the respective petitioners to consolidate the aforesaid criminal cases and to record one common evidence, the respective petitioners have preferred the present Special Criminal Applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) SHRI Hriday Buch, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective petitioners does not press the prayer to consolidate the respective criminal cases and the trial in exercise of powers under Article 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, he has submitted that in view of the fact there are four different dishonour of cheques and there was only one common notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it can be said that there would be only one cause of action for all the four criminal cases and, therefore, all the four criminal cases are required to be consolidated and common evidence is to be recorded.