HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.Nos.1607 and 1608 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since the parties in these cases are common and since the point involved in these cases is also one and the same, these two cases are being disposed of by this common order. These two criminal revision cases are directed against the orders passed by the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad in C.C.Sr.Nos.4207 and 4208 of 2010 dated 30.07.2010 respectively. Brief facts of the cases are that the revision petitioner- complainant and the respondents 2 and 3/accused are well acquainted with each other and some time in the past both of them have planned to produce feature film and out of the said acquaintance the complainant gave an amount of Rs.20,000,000/- to the accused towards hand loan. Accused No.1 is Managing Director and person-incharge and responsible for the conduct of Accused No.2. It is stated that the complainant has requested the accused several times to pay back the said borrowed amount, but in vain. Subsequently, on persistent efforts, the accused issued two cheques, one cheque bearing No.288111 dated 05.04.2010 for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and another cheque bearing No.288112 for an amount of Rs.10,00,0000/- dated 10.05.2010 drawn on State Bank of India, Balanagar branch, Hyderabad to the complainant. When the complainant presented the cheques bearing Nos.288111 dated 05.04.2010 and 288112 dated 10.05.2010 for realization on 11.05.2010 and 25.05.2010 respectively, the same were dishonoured with an endorsement ‘insufficient funds vide cheque return memos dated 12.05.2010 and 26.05.2010 respectively. Thereafter, after following the procedure provided for under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant filed the complaints before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. But, the learned Magistrate returned the said complaints, on 27.07.2010, directing the revision petitioner-complainant to file a single complaint as both the cheques relate to one transaction. The complainant resubmitted the said complaints on 30.07.2010 stating that two separate complaints have been filed for dishonour of two different cheques issued on two different dates and dishonoured on two different dates. It is further stated that separate statutory notices were given for payment of the debt and under Section 218 of Cr.P.C for every distinct offence there by can be a separate charge and similarly in respect of dishonour of each cheque, there can be a separate complaint. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate returned the said complaints by a docket order dated 30.7.2010, stating that “objection dated 27.07.2010 not complied with and follow the procedure under section 219 and 220 of Cr.P.C”. Aggrieved by the same, the present revisions are filed by the complainant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that the cheques bearing Nos.288111 and 288112 are dated 05.04.2010 and 10.05.2010 respectively and cheque return memos are dated 12.05.2010 and 26.05.2010 respectively and that dishonour of two cheques on two different dates will create two different cause of actions and hence filing of two separate complaints are maintainable. He further submits that the Court below erred in directing the petitioner to file one complaint for dishonour of two cheques on two different dates. From a perusal of Section 218 of Cr.P.C. and Section 219 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that Section 218 of Cr.P.C. deals with separate charges for distinct offences, whereas Section 219 of Cr.P.C. deals with three offences of same kind within year may be charged together. It is pertinent to bear in mind that Section 219 Cr.P.C. is an enabling provision and it does not mandate a single trial. In appropriate cases, the Courts are at liberty to try the offences of the same kind in different trial. A cause of action for the prosecution in respect of dishonour of a cheque arises only if the drawer commits default in making payment within stipulated period, after receipt of the notice required to be given in conformity with proviso (b) of Section 138 of the N.I Act, in respect of each tender and the non-payment by the drawee bank on the ground that the balance amount in the account of the drawer is insufficient to honour his commitment or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement with the drawee bank. Each tender of a cheque and its dishonour gives rise to separate cause of action subject to a condition that separate notices are issued in respect of each of the cheques. The payee is not prevented from combining the causes of action by covering all the instances in a single notice. In such a case all the transactions covered by the notice would be regarded as a single transaction, permitting a single trial. However, in a case where cheques were issued on different dates, presented on different dates and separate notices are issued in respect of each default, the transactions cannot be held to be a single transaction attracting provision of Section 219 of Cr.P.C. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the learned Magistrate erred in returning the complaints filed by the petitioner-complainant directing him to file one complaint for dishonour of two cheques on two different dates. Accordingly, both the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, is hereby directed to take cognizance of the offence against the accused, provided the complaints filed by the petitioner are in accordance with law. Office is directed to return the original papers to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 04-10-2010 Gsn.