1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2570 OF 2010 Devendra Kaluram More ..... Petitioner versus Birla Steel Corner & ors........ Respondents Mr. Sanskar Marathe adv. For the petitioner Mr. P.S. Hingorani APP for State, CORAM: V. M. KANADE, J. DATED : 20th October, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner is the original accused in three cases which are filed by the respondent under sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has aggrieved by the order passed by the JMFC First Class, Pune dated 29-7-2010. By the said order the learned Magistrate was pleased to reject the application filed by the petitioner for clubbing all the three cases filed against him under sec. 138 of N.I.Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his defence would be disclosed, if he cross examines the complainant and his witnesses and the complainant therefore would get an opportunity to plug any loop-holes in his case in the second 2 and third complaint. Secondly reliance was placed by him in the judgment of the Apex Court in case of State Bank of India Vs. Ranjan Chemicals Ltd. reported in 2007 (2) BCJ 402 (SC). It was submitted that the principle initiated by the Apex Court in the said case ought to have been applied by the trial court and the matter should have been clubbed. He further submitted that the provisions of sec. 219 also would clearly apply to the facts in the present case. Since all the three cheques allegedly was issued pursuant to the transactions between the parties, namely for the construction material which was supplied by the complainant to the accused. It is not possible to accept the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused. The trial court has observed that cross examination of the complainant and his witnesses is already over. Therefore the question of disclosure of his defence now does not arise. The trial court further has relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Rajendra Choudhary Vs. State of Maharashtra reported ion 2007 TLS 1325100. in which it is observed that only in cases where the dishonour is of the same date and only one statutory demand notice has been issued by the complainant in respect of all cheques, only in such cases one criminal case can be filed. In the present case the admitted position is that three different cheques were issued on three different dates. The date of dishonour is also different and the statutory demand notice was also issued on different dates. Therefore the submission of the learned counsel 3 for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 2. Lastly it has to be noted that the cause of action for filing the complaint under sec. 138 of N.I.Act arises upon the dishonour of the cheque and non payment of the amount after receipt of the statutory notice and therefore the cause of action in each case would be different. In my view, therefore, no case is made out for interfering with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The trial court may, however hear the three cases one after another if possible. (V. M. KANADE, J.)