1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 710/2010 Prashant Bhagwan Pawar Versus Parmeshwar Govindrao Vyavhare and another ..................................................................................................................................................... Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. ..................................................................................................................................................... Mr. N. B. Kalwaghe, counsel for applicant Mr. Srikant Saoji, for respondents Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 29th June 2011 1. Heard submissions. 2. The petitioner questioned the impugned order dated 23/11/2010, passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldhana, in Misc. Criminal Application No. 67/2010, whereby the application under Section 408 of Cr.P.C. came to be rejected. 3. Facts are that the petitioner moved an application with prayer to transfer Criminal Case No. 2 1356/2009 and 1357/2009 for to be heard by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 1, Buldhana. It is the case of the petitioner (original accused) that respondent no. 1 had filed Criminal Case No. 1356/2009 on the basis of alleged dishonour of cheque issued and alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act while respondent no. 2 filed another Summary Criminal Case No. 1357/2009, alleging same offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It is the case of the petitioner that he has common defence to be advanced in respect of both these cases as witnesses proposed to be examined are same and common on behalf of the petitioner so that the time of the Court can be saved if both the cases i.e. Summary Criminal Case No. 1356/2009 and Summary Criminal Case No. 1357/2009, are heard one after another before the same Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Buldhana, which shall serve the interest of justice. 4. It is submitted that the respondents will have no prejudice if both the cases are heard one 3 after another by the same Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Buldhana. It is submitted that learned Principal Sessions Judge, Buldhana, merely considered that the complainants are different in both these cases and that those cases are arising from different cheques. However, the fact that both the cases are against same accused who would like to adduce common evidence of same witnesses in support of his defence which would save cost and time of witnesses as also the Court concerned, if witnesses are summoned on the same day to depose in two cases either one after another or simultaneously as may be desired by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Buldhana. It is submitted that, both the cases be heard by the same JMFC, Buldhana which shall serve the interest of justice. According to petitioner, it would be convenient for the petitioner-accused to tender evidence of common witnesses in both these cases. 5. The petition is opposed on behalf of the respondent who supported the impugned order passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, under Section 408 of 4 Cr.P.C. Learned advocate for the respondent also made reference to ruling in case of Sumedha Sunil Chitpur Versus State of Maharashtra and anr reported in 2010 DGLS(Cri.) Soft 1720. It appears that this Court was considering the contentions advanced with respect to Section 220(1) and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code and observed in connection with three separate cases on the basis of dishonour of three separate cheques on different dates in respect of which complaints were filed by issuing three separate statutory notices. In that connection, it was observed by this Court that the transactions cannot be construed as a single transaction, attracting the provisions of section 219 of Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, no interference was made in respect of rejection of the prayer for clubbing those three complaints together for to be tried and heard. In this case, there is no such prayer for clubbing both the complaints together therefore ratio of this ruling is not attracted. 6. In the present petition, petitioner wants both the cases to be heard by same Judicial Magistrate 5 First Class, Buldhana, in the interest of justice and for the sake of convenience of the petitioner and his witnesses. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent/complainant if cases are heard separately one after the another but by the same JMFC, so as to facilitate the petitioner to summon his witnesses on a fixed date which can save the time and expenses of both the parties and would be convenient for Presiding Officer of the Court. Therefore, I am inclined to entertain this petition. The impugned order is set aside. The Summary Criminal Case No. 1356/2009 and Summary Criminal Case No. 1357/2009 be heard by the same Judicial Magistrate First Class, Buldhana either one after the another or simultaneously preferably on the same day. 8. The criminal writ petition is allowed accordingly. JUDGE Punde