IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13470 of 2008(C) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN ST 1871 2007 IN ST.1869/2007 of C.J.M.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. REEJA R., W/O.SHIJU MUHAMMED, AGED 27 YEARS, NRS VILLA, NELLIMOODU, MURUKUMPUZHA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MAJITHA BEEVI, AMINAS, KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. AZOORA BEEVI, AMINAS, KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY G.P. SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 13470 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners are three sisters – all of whom face separate prosecutions under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioners have an identical defence to advance in all the three cases. They appear through the same counsel. It is their contention in each case that there was a practice of blank signed cheques being handed over to the complainant bank and the complainant bank, it is alleged, has misutilised the cheques so given to the bank. The cases against the petitioners have been listed for trial. They are coming up for trial on 3 different; but consecutive dates. The petitioners have come to this Court, in these circumstances, with a prayer that a joint trial may be directed. In the alternative, it is prayed that, at least, there may be a direction W.P.(c) No. 13470 of 2008 -: 2 :- that the cross-examination of the principal witness for the complainant in all the three cases may be taken up together. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners were requested to explain whether the court below has been moved in the matter before the petitioners approaching this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, a petition has been filed before the learned Magistrate. A request has been made before the learned Magistrate to get all the three cases taken up together and tried jointly. The said request has been rejected by the learned Magistrate holding that the prosecutions are distinct and separate prosecutions on the basis of three different cheques. 3. I find merit in the stand taken by the learned Magistrate. I am not persuaded to agree that a joint trial can be directed as the subject matter of the dispute in the three cases are distinct and separate, though there may be identical contentions also to be raised in the three cases. 4. This writ petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. The petitioners can make their request before the learned Magistrate for an opportunity to cross-examine the witness for the complainant in all the three cases on the same day. Such request shall be considered by the learned Magistrate and W.P.(c) No. 13470 of 2008 -: 3 :- appropriate orders shall be passed. 5. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioners. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge