IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11 DAY DE T CE ST. 2u ii THE HON 13 LE. M R. I USTICE B2v1 P1 NTO MINAL APPEAL !.Q 4L Q CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 2647/2010, 2753 Z4L.2QP9,275f Q3 and 2756j2009 I CRL.ANO2b46/2U1U BET\’ HEN: Snt. Aisi=j ( 1 ’i FicL H, u Flosakuli iTTki Hiakai I I(11iic\ II1 iIIUI Lilara I\annada Rahava C. H. \j ai or, Guru N i lay a p a. Atradi. Pa: Hark al Lciup Dst. 2. State of IKarnatak a hlc Pi U RL’ )( ‘a. F.3\ ur (. \l E3la.t . iar \i and H a a. a IC C H -2- Criminal appeal No.2646/2010 is filed under. Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order of acquittal dated 13.01.2010 passed by the Principal JMFC, Honnavar in C.C.No.196/2006 by convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. IN CRL.A.NO.2647/2010 BETWEEN: Sri. Raghavendra N.K Age: Major, R/o. Navilgon Honnavar Taluk District: Uttara Kannada APPELLANT (By Sri.J. S. Shetty Associates, Advs.) AND: 1. RaghavaC.H. Major, Guru Nilaya R/o. Atradi, Po: Karkal Udupi Dist. 2. State of Karnataka By its Public Prosecutor RESPONDENTS (By Sri. G. M. Bhat, Adv. for RI Sri. Anand Kumar Navalgimath, HCGP for R2) Criminal appeal No.2647/2010 is filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order of acquittal dated 13.01.2010 passed by the Principal 1 JMFC, Honnavar in C.C.No. 106/2007 by convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. LtcRL.A.NO.L753/.tQQ1 BETWEEN: Shridhar Shesagiri Mesia Major, Merchant Udyamnagar, Tq: Konnavar U.K. District APPELLANT (By Sri.J. S. Shetty Associates, Advs.) AND: Raghava C. H. Major, Guru Nilaya RIo. Atradi, Po: Karkal Udupi Dist. RESPONDENT (By Sri. G. M. Bhat, Adv.) Criminal appeal No.2753/2009 is filed under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order of acquittal dated 06.08.2009 passed by the Principal JMFC, Honnavar in C.C.No.813/2006 by convicting the accused for the offence punishab!e tinder Section 138 1)1 the Negotiable Instruments :ct. L&CRL.A.NO.2754/20Q9. BETWEEN: Abdul Mutalik Abdul Rhadar Sheikh Age: 43 Merchant Jogmath, Tq: Honnavar U.K. District APPELLANT (By Sriai. S. Shetty Associates, A(lvs.) a, .4 AND: Raghava C. H. Major, Guru Nilaya R/o. Atradi. Po: Karkal Udupi Disc RESPONDENT IBy Sri. 0. M. Bhat. Ad’.) Criminal appeal No.2754Q009 is filed under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order of acquittal dated 06.08.2009 passed by the Principal JMFC, Honnavar in C.C.No.549/2006 by convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. IN_CRL&NO.275J.0Q9 BETWEEN: Gopalakrishna R. Hegde Major, Ryot & Merchant R/o. Amsalli, Navilgon Tq: Honnavar APPELLANT (By Sri.J. S. Shetty Associates, Advs.) AND: Raghava C. H. Major. Guru Nilaya R/o. Atradi, PC): Karkal Udupi Dist. RESPONDENT (By Sri. G. M. Bhat, Adv.) Criminal apfr.il No27 55/ 2C)09 is filed under Secti.on 378(1.) Cr, PC .seek.i.ngt.o set aside the o.rder of acquittal dated 06.08 2009 passed by t.he Principal JMPC, Honnavar in C.No,8/ 2E0 1 by convictin5 the accused for the offence eunshahle under Section 1 58 of he N eo,ntiable in str men s IN CRL.A.NO2756 200f’ Ganapati Shiva Hegde Age: 55 ears, Merchant Hosakuli Paiki Hiremakki Tq: Honnavar, U,K,Dhitrict (Ky Sri.J. 8. Shew Associates. rkOVS. Raghava C, H. Major, Guru Nilava R./o. Atradi, P0:.: K.arka.l Udupi Gist, (By Sri, C, M. Bhat AdvJ RESPONDEINTS Crim in al lne al No 2756: 20(19 is Section 378i 1) Cr. PC seekin to set aside acquiflal rioted Un U 2099 cssedhv 1\IF( Honnc i u’ C C \ 9 SOUn accused for the offence unish.abl.e under the Negotii.fble Instruments Act.. fiim.I ti:idci’ )r(ler the Pb cinal co ivic tlna ide Sectinn 1 :18 of These c.rirninal appeals cominp on liar ad.m issi.on this day. the Court delbcred the •folluwinp.: A JUDGMENT Heard the counsel for the appellants and respondents. 2. These appeals are filed challenging the judgments of the learned Principal JMFC at Honnavar, in which the learned Magistrate has clubbed more than one case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (‘N .1. Act’ for short) and recorded common evidence and disposed of the cases by a common judgment. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the said procedure is contrary to the provisions of Section 219 of Cr.P.C. where unIv three cases of the same nature committed within the period of one year can be tried together. He therefore submits that prejudice has been caused to the complainant and hence the judgments passed in these may be set aside. 4. The learned Counsel for the accused who is common in all the cases submits that the said clubbing 4 -7- has been done under Section 2 19(1) and 223 Cr.P.C as said cases arise out of the same transaction. 3. Section 219(1) Cr.P.C states as follows: -219. Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together - (1) When a person is czc used of more offènces 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 he charged with, and tried at one trial for. any number of them not e.vceecling three.” 2) tttttttttttcnxttxttvx 6. Section 223 Cr.P.U stairs as follows: “223. What persons may be charged Jotntly — The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:- a) persons accused qf the same a/fence committed in the course of the sante transaction.” I)) x.ttvx.t’cttv.tvx.tn:m:tv.v.:’ -s - 7. It is observed that the complainants in all these cases are different persons and the cause of action arouse at different times and b issuance of separate notices under Section 138 of N.J. Act. In these appeals 6 cases have been clubbed together which is contrary to Section 2 19(1) where tinder only three cases could have been clubbed. 8. Further. it is not brought out on record that all these cheques were given during the course of same transaction. Hence Section 223 is also not applicable to these cases. 9. It is further noted that the decision cited b the learned Magistrate in the case of Krishna Janarcihan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya 0. Hegde reported in 2008-CLC-•O 305 (Crl.A.518/2006 of Supreme Court) has been overruled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported in AIR 2010 Sc 1898 and hence the ruling is also not applicable to these cases. a -9- 10. In view of the said position of law, the appeals are allowed and the orders of acquittal passed in these cases are set aside. The matters are remanded to the trial Court for disposal of the cases by recording the evidence separately in each case. The bail bond executed by the respondent in all these cases are also restored and the accused is directed to be bound by the bond already executed by him. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of these cases within an outel limit of nine months from today. The respondent as vell as the appellants shall appear before the trial Court on 05.09.201 1 without waiting for thc notice from the Court. Appeals are disposed of accordingly. sdI JDGE gab