TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (1) TMI 428
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ledged invoices for 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 5th May, 2010 012 7,62,140/- 12 11th May, 2010 014 70,549/- 13 15th May, 2010 015 19,556/- 14 18th May, 2010 016 1,89,109/- 15 19th May, 2010 017 4,39,353/- 16 19th May, 2010 018 3,61,648/-, 17 21st May, 2010 019 1,94,054/- 18 22nd May, 2010 020 1,74,270/- 19 25th May, 2010 024 6,51,507/- 20 26th May, 2010 025 13,61,424/- 21 27th May, 2010 027 5,93,691/- 22 28th May, 2010 028 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bounced 11/01/11 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 dishonoured cheques, whereas respondent No. 2 has filed the complaint case against 14 cheques. 8. I note on his submission that notice was issued in the instant petition vide order dated 2.7.2011 and the proceedings were stayed before the trial court. 9. I further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence." 11. Learned Counsel submits that when a person commits more offences than one of the same kind committed within a period of 12 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 by one trial for any number of them not exceeding three. 12. Learned Counsel further submits that the cheques in question were issued on different dates for the different transactions, therefore, each transaction is independent and if there is any default, each would have a different offence. Therefore, filing of one complaint against dishonour of 14 cheques is barred by Section 219 of Criminal Procedural Code, 1860 as referred to above. 13. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has submitted that all the cheques were given on different dates however were of the same transaction. Out of the total cheques 25 in number, only 14 were dishonoured, however remaining honoured. 14. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the case of this Court in Lalit Fabrics Private Limited v. Linkers Associates Limited 1995 Law Suit (Del) 874, wherein it is held that all th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... initiation of action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In fact it is not to his disadvantage but it is an advantage that a single complaint is lodged against the accused by the complainant. The cause of action giving raise to a complaint is upon the service of notice contemplated under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and not upon the dishonour of the cheques and therefore the contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the provisions of Section 219 of the Cr. P.C. are not applicable to the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has to be accepted." 17. Learned counsel has also relied upon a case of this Court reported as Alpha Graphics v. Arjun Kohli 148 (2008) DLT 373 wherein it was held as under: "10. Turning to the next submission regarding one complaint being filed for as many as 20 dishonoured cheques, a reference may be made to Section 219 Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as under: Section 219 Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together - (1) When ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... date and they were dishonoured by the Bank. The intimation of dishonour of the cheques was given by the Bank to respondent No. 1 on one and the same date i.e. 10.3.1997. It may further be noted that a single notice dated 19.3.1997 in respect of the dishonour of all the 27 cheques was given to the petitioners. The offence under Section 138 is deemed to have committed when the drawer of the cheques fails to make payment of the amount of money within 15 days of the receipt of the demand notice given under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also material to note that all the 27 cheques issued by the petitioner were in connection with a single transaction entered with respondent No. 1. Therefore, the provisions of Section 220(1) of Cr. P. Code permits the respondent No. 1 to file one complaint against the petitioners in respect of the said transaction and the petitioners can be tried together for the dishonour of 27 cheques which in fact forms the same transactions. In this respect Mr. Sathyanarayanan referred to the decision in K. Govindaraj v. Ashwin Baral, I (1998) BC 581=1998 Cri.L.J 22, which was a case in respect of 6 dishonoured cheques given to the complain....