Separate trial for dishonoured cheques under the CrPC is permitted where each cheque arises from distinct liabilities and transactions.

Sections 219 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are enabling exceptions to the general rule that distinct offences must be charged and tried separately. In prosecutions under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, dishonour of different cheques issued on different dates and supported by distinct liabilities ordinarily constitutes separate offences and separate causes of action, not one transaction. Because the two complaints arose from different factual bases and different underlying liabilities, refusal to club them disclosed no illegality, irregularity or perversity. The separate complaints were therefore permitted to proceed independently.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether offences arising from the dishonour of different cheques issued in different factual contexts could be tried together under sections 219 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the refusal to club the two complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, suffered from illegality, irregularity or perversity.

Issue (i): Whether offences arising from the dishonour of different cheques issued in different factual contexts could be tried together under sections 219 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 218 embodies the general rule that distinct offences are to be charged and tried separately, while sections 219 and 220 operate as exceptions and confer discretion to try certain offences together. The provisions are enabling in nature and do not create a mandate for joint trial. A joint trial under section 219 is confined to offences of the same kind committed within twelve months, and section 220 applies only where the acts form the same transaction. In prosecutions under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, each dishonoured cheque gives rise to a separate cause of action, and dishonour of cheques issued on different dates and supported by different liabilities does not, by itself, constitute one transaction.

Conclusion: The offences were not required to be tried jointly and the request for clubbing was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to club the two complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, suffered from illegality, irregularity or perversity.

Analysis: The two complaints were founded on different sets of cheques and on different underlying liabilities, one relating to financial assistance and the other to purchase of goods. The complainant had already grouped the cheques into two separate complaints, and the factual foundation of the two proceedings was distinct. Since the statute permits separate complaints for separate dishonoured cheques and does not prohibit separate trials merely because joint trial may also be permissible in some circumstances, the order declining clubbing did not disclose any legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The impugned order did not suffer from illegality, irregularity or perversity.

Final Conclusion: The petition was found meritless and the order refusing joint trial was upheld, leaving the separate complaints to proceed independently.

Ratio Decidendi: Sections 219 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are enabling exceptions to the general rule of separate trials, and dishonour of different cheques arising from distinct liabilities ordinarily constitutes separate offences capable of separate complaints and separate trials.

---