PRINTO STICK Vs. M L OSWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner in this revision is that more than three instances have been clubbed together in a single transaction, which is contrary to the mandate under Section 219, of the Cr. P.C.

(2.) The respondent filed a complaint for the offence under Sections 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, in C.C. No. 7561 of 1990, against the petitioner, stating that the complainant sold and delivered fancy papers etc. on credit to the accused for Rs. 45,812-16, for which the accused gave four cheques to the complainant viz.(1) dated 25-5-1990 for Rs. 5,000/-, (2) dated 5-6-1990 for Rs. 4570-85, (3) dated 25-6-1990 for Rs. 5,000/- and (4) dated 5-7-1990 for Rs. 3588-36, totalling to the tune of Rs. 18,159-21, and that after due dates, the complainant presented the said cheques for realisation and the same have been dishonoured by the bank with the endorsement "exceeds arrangement'' and that in spite of the statutory notice, the accused did not make the payment in time.

(3.) This was taken on file by the learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, for the above said offences, and questioned the accused on 14-12-1990. The accused pleaded not guilty. The question put by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is as follows :(Vernacular matter is omitted. . . . . .Ed.)This order is under the challenge in this revision, contending that the four cheques relating to the four instances have been clubbed together ina single case and thereby, Section 219, Cr. P.C., has been violated. For substantiating the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited a decision reported in, 1994(1) Mad LW (Crl.) 34 M/s. Ruby Leather Exports Rep. by its Proprietor, Baskar v. K. Venu, Rep. Vandhana Chemicals Etc. In paragraph 37 of the above referred judgment, Arunachalam, J, has held as follows :-"