LAXMAN BHAGUJI Vs. SATYABHAMA SHILATA CHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant original complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 10th November, 2006 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Pimpri in CC No 2830 of 2003. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 original accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the offence under Section of 138 of N.I. Act.

(2.) Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant original complainant and the learned APP for the State. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence in the present case which has been annexed.

(3.) The amount involved in the present case is Rs. 1,00,000. Two cheques were issued for Rs. 50,000 each. The cheque at Ex. 18 was issued by accused No. 2 and the cheque at Ex. 26 was issued by accused No. 1. The cheque at Ex. 18 was drawn on Seva Vikas Cq-operative Bank Limited and cheque at Ex. 26 was drawn on Shree Sadguru Jangli Maharaj Bank Limited, Theregaon Branch. Both cheques were drawn on different banks by different accused and in individual capacity. Therefore on dishonour of each of these cheques there is different cause of action for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. As per Section 218 of Cri.P.C. for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately. In this case on dishonour of cheque at Ex. 18 and Ex. 26 there are distinct offences regarding accused Nos. 1 and 2 for which it was mandatory to try these two accused persons separately as per Section 218 of Cr.P.C. As per Section 223 of Cri.P.C. persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together. However, in the present case the offence committed by accused No. 1 for dishonour of cheque at Ex. 26 and the offence committed by accused No.2 for dishonour of cheque at Ex. 18 are distinct offences and are not same offences. In complaint, at Ex. 1, the complainant had mentioned two different cause of action against accused Nos. 1 and 2 on dishonour of their respective cheques. This case would also not covered by Sections 219 and 220 of Cri.P.C.