( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 220 OF 2009 Sureshkumar s/o Ramchandra Nair PETITIONER VERSUS Ashokkumar s/o Kishanrao Kasliwal RESPONDENT and another. ..... Mr. K.B. Jadhav, advocate holding for Mr. K.F. Shingare, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Pawar, advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Patil, APP for the respondent No.2/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 30th September, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Mr. Jadhav, holding for Mr. Shingare, advocate, seeks adjournment. On earlier occasions, the matter is adjourned from time to time due to difficulties expressed by Mr. K.F. Shingare, appearing for the petitioner. No good ground appears to grant any further time. ( 2 ) 2. Heard. 3. The petition is filed by the original complainant who is aggrieved due to the orders of acquittal rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 07-04-2008 in S.C.C. No. 2962/2004 and order dated 17-01-2009 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in criminal revision application No. 174/2008 whereby the revision petition came to be dismissed. 4. The petitioner filed a complaint for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was registered vide S.C.C. No. 6872/2004. The respondent was convicted in the said case. The respondent again filed another complaint on the same set of facts in respect of another cheque. The applicant (accused) filed an application for discharge alleging that he could not be tried again in view of section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate rejected the application by order dated 07-04-2008. The said order was confirmed by the revisional Court who dismissed the criminal revision ( 3 ) application No. 174/2008. 5. In view of the fact that both the criminal complaints i.e. S.C.C. No. 6872/2004 and S.C.C. No. 2962/2004 are founded on two different causes of action, being filed due to dishonour of two (2) different cheques, it is manifestly clear that the principle of “autrefois convict” is not applicable. There is no substance in the petition and hence, stands dismissed. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criwp220-09