..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1471 OF 2007 Mr.Vijay Praneshrao Katti. ..Petitioner. Versus M/s.TICC Company And Anr. ..Respondents. .... Mr.D.A.Athavale, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 1st October, 2008. DATED : 1st October, 2008. DATED : 1st October, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner-orig.accused and the learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is facing prosecution in two cases under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act. The said cases are C.C. NO.4273 of 2004 and C.C.No.3718 of 2004. The prayer of the petitioner is that both the cases be tried together. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant and the accused ..(2).. persons in both the cases are the same. He has submitted that if the trial goes on separately in both the cases then the defence taken by the petitioner in the first case would be revealed to the complainant and hence the petitioner would be prejudiced in the trial of the second case. 4. It is seen that both the cases pertain to two different cheques. Two separate cheques have been issued. Two separate notices have been issued in respect of dishonour of the said cheques. The cheques in question and the notices in question in both the cases are different. Thus, it is seen that the cause of action in both the cases are different. In this view of the matter, no infirmity could be found with the orders of both the Courts below whereby the application of the petitioner for trying both the cases together came to be rejected. 5. Looking to the above facts, Writ Petition is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)