- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajasthani Trading Co. v. Chemos International Limited
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners/applicants challenged an order dated 15.1.2000 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Girgaum, Mumbai, rejecting their application to recall the process and discharge them in a criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The original complainant, respondent No. 1, filed the criminal case alleging that the petitioners issued 27 cheques totaling Rs. 54.50 lakhs for goods sold and delivered. The cheques were dishonoured by the bank on the ground of “Exceeds Arrangement.” Respondent No. 1 issued a demand notice which was received by the petitioners, who failed to pay within 15 days, prompting the filing of a private complaint. The petitioners contended that the complaint was not maintainable for all 27 cheques together under Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. Code), which limits joint trials to three offences of the same kind within twelve months. The Magistrate rejected this contention, holding that there was only one cause of action, and the petitioners could be tried together for all cheques.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioners can be tried together in a single trial for the dishonour of 27 cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, or whether the trial must be limited to three offences as per Section 219 of the Cr. P. Code.
- Whether the complaint filed for dishonour of multiple cheques arising from a single transaction constitutes a single cause of action permitting a joint trial.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The petitioners argued that each dishonoured cheque constitutes a separate offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
- They contended that under Section 219 of the Cr. P. Code, only three offences of the same kind committed within twelve months can be tried together, and therefore, the trial on 27 cheques is impermissible.
- Reference was made to the Full Bench decision in D.K Chandra v. The State, which held that multiple charges beyond the permissible limit under the then applicable Section 233 of the Cr. P. Code 1898 could not be tried together.
Respondent No. 1's Arguments
- Respondent No. 1 contended that all 27 cheques were issued in connection with a single transaction and were presented and dishonoured on the same date.
- It was argued that the dishonour of all cheques constitutes a single cause of action, permitting a single complaint and trial under Section 220(1) of the Cr. P. Code.
- Reliance was placed on the Madras High Court decision in K. Govindaraj v. Ashwin Barai, which held that multiple cheques issued in relation to one transaction and presented together constitute a single offence for trial purposes.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| D.K Chandra v. The State, 53 Bombay Law Reporter 928 | Holding that trial on more than three charges of the same kind under Section 233 Cr. P. Code 1898 is impermissible. | The court distinguished this precedent on facts, noting that the offences in that case involved different charges and amounts, whereas in the present case all cheques relate to one transaction. |
| K. Govindaraj v. Ashwin Barai, I (1998) BC 581 : 1998 Cri. L.J 22 (Madras High Court) | Multiple cheques issued in relation to a single transaction and presented together constitute a single offence for trial purposes under Section 220(1) Cr. P. Code. | The court adopted this view, holding that the dishonour of 27 cheques forming one transaction can be tried together in a single trial. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the applicability of Section 219 of the Cr. P. Code, which limits joint trials to three offences of the same kind committed within twelve months. It acknowledged that each dishonoured cheque constitutes a separate offence. However, the court emphasized that all 27 cheques were issued in relation to a single transaction, were presented to the bank on the same date, and dishonoured on the same date, with a single demand notice issued thereafter. The court also noted that Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act deems the offence committed when payment is not made within 15 days of receipt of the demand notice.
Relying on Section 220(1) of the Cr. P. Code, the court held that multiple offences arising out of the same transaction can be tried together. The court found the Madras High Court decision in K. Govindaraj v. Ashwin Barai persuasive, which held that multiple cheques linked to a single transaction and presented together constitute a single offence for trial purposes. The court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on D.K Chandra, distinguishing the facts and highlighting that the present case involves one transaction rather than multiple distinct offences.
Accordingly, the court upheld the Magistrate’s decision that a single trial for all 27 cheques is permissible and that the petitioners’ application to recall the process and discharge them could not be sustained.
Holding and Implications
The petition is dismissed.
The court held that the petitioners can be tried in a single trial for the dishonour of all 27 cheques issued in connection with a single transaction. The Magistrate’s order rejecting the petitioners’ application to recall the process and discharge them is upheld. The decision directly affects the parties by permitting the continuation of the criminal trial on all cheques together. No new precedent beyond the application of existing provisions and relevant case law was established.
J.A Patil, J.:— Heard Mr. N.K Thakore with Mr. Prakash Naik for the applicants and Mr. R. Sathyanarayanan with Mr. R.R Chaurasia for respondent No. 1, and Smt. Usha Kejariwal, APP for respondent No. 2-State.
2. Rule, by consent, Rule is heard forthwith.
3. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr. P. Code, the petitioners/applicants have impugned the order dated 15.1.2000 passed in Criminal Case No. 2080.S/97 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaum, Mumbai. The learned Magistrate rejected the application filed by the petitioners/applicants praying for recall of the process and their discharge. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners/applicants have filed this petition.
4. The facts relevant for appreciating the controversy involved are in short that respondent No. 1 is original complainant, who filed a criminal case against the petitioners (original accused Nos. 1 and 2) on the charge of their having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that respondent No. 1 had sold and delivered certain goods to the petitioners who in the discharge of their liability for the said transaction issued 27 cheques in favour of respondent No. 1 for a total sum of Rs. 54.50 lakhs. Out of the 27 cheques, 25 were dated 26.2.1997 and the remaining two were dated 30.11.1996 Respondent No. 1 presented all the cheques to the concerned Bank, who returned the same unpaid on the ground of “Exceeds Arrangement”. Respondent No. 1 received the intimation from the Bank on 10.3.1997 Thereafter a notice was issued to the petitioners on 19.3.1997
5. The said notice was received by the petitioners on 25.3.1997 However, they did not pay the amount of cheques issued by them in favour of respondent No. 1 within 15 days from the receipt of the notice. Consequently, respondent No. 1 was constrained to file a private complaint against both the petitioners on 5.5.1997 The learned Magistrate issued process against both the accused petitioners. Thereafter, on 27.8.1991 the petitioners filed an application praying for recalling process and discharging them. One of the contentions made in the said application was that the complaint in respect of dishonour of 27 cheques was not maintainable as under Section 219 of the Cr. P. Code, only 3 transactions in one year could be tried together. The learned Magistrate, however, did not accept this contention as according to her there was only one cause of action against the petitioners. In this view of the matter, the learned Magistrate proceeded to reject the application.
6. Mr. Thakore referred to the provisions of Section 219 of the Cr. P. Code, which are to the following effect:
219. (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 sa me section of the Indian Penal Code or of any special or local law:
Provided that, for the purpose of this section, an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under section 380 of the said code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence.
7. On the offence of the above mentioned provisions Mr. Thakore contended before me that petitioners could be tried at a single trial in respect of any of the three cheques which were dishonoured. In short, according to Mr. Thakore, dishonour of each of the 27 cheques amounts to a separate offence and, therefore, there cannot be a single trial in respect of the 27 offences of dishonour of cheques. Mr. Thakore made reference to the Full Bench of this Court in D.K Chandra v. The State, 53 Bombay Law Reporter 928, wherein it was held that trial of the accused on 4 charges at the same trial was not permissible under Section 233 of the Cr. P. Code 1898. However, reliance on the said case is not proper and correct in view of the fact that the facts in the present case asre totally different. In the said case, the accused was being tried firstly for an offence under section 409 of the lp. code for having committed breach of trust in respect of an amount of Rs. 2500/- on 12.4.1949 For the same amount, he was alternatively charged under section 420 of the lp. code. In addition the accused was also charged under section 409 of the lp. code for an offence of misappropriation in respect of the amount of Rs. 900/- committed on 20.4.1949 He was, further, alternatively charged in respect of the same amount under section 420 of the lp. code. It was contended on behalf of the prosecution that in substance the accused was charged with two offences of the same kind as other two offences were alternative and that the accused could be convicted only of the two offences. The Full Bench, however, observed that what was necessary to be considered was not what the result of the trial would be, not on what charges would the accused be convicted or sentenced, but what are the charges which are framed against him and in respect of how many offences he has to face the trial. It was pointed out that there could not be any dispute that the accused would be required to face trial not on two charges but on four charges.
8. It is true that in the instant case petitioners had 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 be issued to respondent No. 1, within a span of less than 3 months. It is also true that dishonour in respect of each cheque would constitute separate offence. However, it is to be borne in mind that all the 27 cheques were presented to the Bank on one and the same 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 petitioners 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 Barai, I (1998) BC 581 : 1998 Cri. L.J 22, which was a case in respect of 6 dishonoured cheques given to the complaint within a period of 3 months. The Madras High Court held that the cheques though given on different dates, were presented on one particular date as requested by the accused, and, therefore, one offence must be deemed to have been committed in respect of the single transaction. It was further held that acts of giving the cheques were merged together to form the same transaction. Therefore, the accused should be charged and tried at one trial for such an offence. It was, however, held that even otherwise Section 220(1) of the Cr. P. Code permits for such a single trial. I am inclined to adopt the same view taken by the Madras High Court. Consequently, it will have to be held that the challenge given by the petitioners in this petition cannot be sustained. The learned Magistrate must be held to be right in holding that the petitioners can be tried at a single trial for the dishonour of all the 27 cheques.
9. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 20.11.2000
11. Petition dismissed.
Alert