TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a sum of ` .2,14,50,519/- details of which are as under: S. No. Sales Bill No. Amount 1 6th April, 2010 001 3,08,667/- 2 6th April, 2010 002 3,56,954/- 3 10th April, 2010 003 9,05.766/- 4 15th April, 2010 004 89,270/- 5 15th April, 2010 005 8,23,806/- 6 26th April, 2010 007 5,71,445/- 7 30th April, 2010 008 8,17,607/- 8 3rd May, 2010 009 14,41,683/- 9 4th May, 2010 010 17,862/- 10 4th May, 2010 011 1,15,380/- 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- 35 16th July, 2010 082 3,53,692/- 36 16th July, 2010 083 3,10,609/- 37 16th July, 2010 084 3,13,656/- 38 17th July, 2010 089 3,17,471/- 39 9th October, 2010 147 4,63,487/- 4. Against the supply of the material and after being approved and acknowledged, the following payments were made: S. No. Dated C. No. Amount Remarks 1 13th April, 2010 929483 3,00,000/- Passed 2 15th April, 2010 928912 61,591/- Passed 3 5th May, 2010 012 (Claim) 23,813/- Settled 4 30th May, 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/11 22 28th Dec., 2010 933701 7,27,474/- Bounced 11/01/11 23 9th January, 2011 933957 4,63,487/- Bounced 11/01/11 24 15th January, 2011 933702 7,27,474/- Bounced 29/01/11 25 25th January, 2011 933703 7,27,475/- Bounced 29/01/11 5. Out of 25 cheques as mentioned above, 14 cheques were dishonoured on different dates for the reasons Exceed Arrangements 6. The petitioner has raised a legal issue vide the instant petition that respondent No. 2 filed one complaint in regard to all the 14 cheques. Vide order dated 15.4.2011 and 2.7.2011, learned Metropolitan Magistrate has issued summons to the petitioners Nos. 1 to 3. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Kershi Pirozsha Bhagvagar v. State of Gujarat and Anr. 2007 Cri.L.J. 3858, where it was observed that one complaint case can be filed maximum against three dishonoure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 71,61,563.00 15 917421 15.12.10 28,24,754.00 15.2.11 to 28.2.11 (S.R.E.) Total Rs. 39,73,348.00 Rs. 71,61,563.00 Rs. 28,24,754.00 Rs.1,39,59,665.00 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 219 of the Criminal Procedural Code, 1860. For the convenience, it is reproduced as under: (1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. (2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or of any special or local laws: Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent and the purchases and payments made by them were debited and credited in the account books which were maintained in the regular course of business. Thus, the accused-company had a single ledger account with the 2nd respondent in respect of all transactions made by the accused-company. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in filing a single complaint in respect of dishonour of several cheques. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners on this aspect is thus devoid of merit. 16. And he also referred the case of Karnataka High Court in Tiruchandoor Muruhan Spinning Mills (Private) Limited v. Madanlal Ramkumar Cotton and General Merchants 2000 Law Suit (Kar) 486 where in it was held as under: 6. Insofar as the important question raised for consideration in this petition that the provisions of Section 219 of the Cr. P.C. is attracted to the facts of the case is concerned, it is contended that cause of action for the complainant arose only after service of notice to the accused. It is pointed out that the complainant has issued a single notice calling upon the accused by way of demand to pay the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of service of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an offence. 11. The purport of the above provision is that where a person is accused of more than one offence of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months he can be charged and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. The stage for determining whether there should be more than one charge and therefore more than one trial has not yet been reached. That will be decided at the appropriate stage by the learned trial court as and when charges are framed. This issue should therefore be appropriately addressed to that Court. The mere reference in the complaint to 20 cheques as having been dishonoured cannot render the complaint bad in law or not maintainable. The order of the learned MM issuing summons also does not get invalidated on that score. The second submission of learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner is also rejected. and that of Bombay High Court in Rajasthani Trading Co. and Anr. v. Chemos International Limited and Anr. II (2001) BC 426 observing: It is true that in the instant case petitioner has issued 27 cheques, 2 of which were dated 30.11.1996 while the remaining were dated 26.2.1997. Thus all the 27 cheques came to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
