1 Cri. Appeal No. 994.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 994 OF 2009 Sunil Lalchand Munot ... Petitioner V E R S U S Mansons Industries M.I.D.C. ... Respondent ... Mr.G.K.Thigale(Naik),Advocate for Petitioner Mr.S.P.Brhame,Advocate for respondent ... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 30TH MARCH, 2010 PER COURT : 1] The petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Ahmadnagar in Criminal Revision No. 106 of 2009, whereby the petitioner's plea that the certain cases that are pending against him are hit by principle of double jeopardy mentioned in Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2] The facts which led to this stand are as follows: . The respondent-complainant received four cheques of Rs.3,40,000/- from the petitioner. The first cheque was of Rs.40,000/- and remaining three were of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The respondent- 2 Cri. Appeal No. 994.2009 complainant said, the petitioner owed this amount. All the cheques were delivered at one time and were of 1st June 2003. The respondent-complainant then tried to encash these cheques, but they were dishonored. The cause of action for filing the criminal cases thus arose. Accordingly, the Criminal cases were filed. It so happened, first two cases were decided and learned Judge convicted the petitioner in two first cases. Remaining two cases remained pending. 3] In this situation, in the remaining two cases, the petitioner moved his application under section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, saying that his conviction in the earlier two cases would operate as bar (double jeopardy) for trying the next two cases. Both the Courts below rejected this argument and so this petition is filed. 4] The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner pointed out that all four cases arise from one transaction, whereby, there was only one alleged liability of paying Rs.3,40,000/-to the respondent-complainant. He, therefore, rightly pointed out that, all four cases are inter related as they arose from one transaction. He pointed out that, the respondent-complainant some how got the first two cases clubbed together and got them disposed of. He, therefore, suggested that remaining two cases which are still not disposed 3 Cri. Appeal No. 994.2009 of should be hit by principle of double jeopardy. In order to support this view, the learned advocate placed reliance on the Judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Sanker Lal Agarwalla Vs. Corporation of Calcutta, reported in AIR 1962 Calcutta 611. In the reported case, three different Food Inspectors, at one point of time visited Godown of the accused and took samples from three different lots of “Ghee” and when they found all the samples were adulterated, the three different cases were lodged. The Calcutta High Court held that in such situation there was only one offence that could be alleged against the accused and so only one case is maintainable and not three. There is no similarity in the facts of the reported case and cases before this Court. When cheques are issued, each cheque would give rise different causes of action and each cheque would give rise to separate offence, even though the cheques are inter-related arising from one transaction. There could be one liability and in order to discharge such liability there can be issuance of one or more cheques. If a party issues more than one cheque for effecting payment in installments he thereby incurs liability of honouring of each and every of such cheques. In case of failure of cheque/s, he incurs liability to face criminal prosecution in each case. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the case Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala and others Vs. Union of India 4 Cri. Appeal No. 994.2009 reported in AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1620. Even in the reported case the facts were different. The accused were partners of a firm. The firm entered into a contract with the complainant and during the course of performance of the contract partners of the firm committed offences of cheating at several places in pursuance of criminal conspiracy. The Supreme Court held that single charge of cheating in such a case would be permissible, because though the events of cheating took place at different places and different time they were connected to one conspiracy and so they were not different. 5] The petition should therefore fail. The petition stands dismissed. The petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.5000/-(Rs Five thousand) to the respondent, because the petitioner has approached to this Court, certainly with a view to delay the disposal of the criminal Cases pending against him. He tried to stop the proceeding firstly by filing Criminal Revision, due to pendency of which seven months time was lost and for last six months this petition is pending. Sd/- (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) MTK/ok