M.Cr.C. No.

428/2017
17/01/2017
Shri V.P. Bhagwat, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( for short 'The Code') against
order dated 15/11/2016 passed by XIIth Additional
Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision Nos.
786/2016, 787/2016 and 788/2016, which have been
disposed of by a common order.
Vide the impugned order learned revisional Court
has declined to interefere in order dated 29/09/2016
passed by learned Magistrate in three different matters
bearing Criminal Case Nos. 42718/2014, 42717/2014
and 42719/2014.
Learned Magistrate, vide the three different orders,
had rejected the application(s) submitted on behalf of the
petitioner under Section 219 of 'The Code' praying for
joint trial of three complaint cases, registered for offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiabele Instruments Act,
1881 (for short 'The NI Act') on the basis of three private
complaint preferred against the petitioner by three
different complainants.
Though, the learned Magistrate was of the view that
Section 219 of 'The Code' is not applicable in cases
under Section 138 of 'The NI Act', however, the learned
revisional Court took the view that Section 219 of 'The
Code' is applicable in respect of cases under Section 138
of 'The NI Act' but concurred with the dismissal of
application(s) on the ground that the complainants are
different persons in all the three cases and that Section
219 of 'The Code' conferes a discretion on the Court to
hold joint trial with regard to three offences committed
within a period of 12 months together and that the
provisions are not of mandatory nature.
Impugned order as well as the order passed by the
learned Magistrate have been challenged before this
Court on the ground that in each case the petitioner shall
be required to disclose his defence and if the three cases
are tried separately then disclosure of defence in one case
may prejudice him in other cases.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the record.
Section 219 of 'The Code', which is relevant for the
present purpose, runs as under:
“219. Three offences of same kind within
year may be charged together.
(1) When a person is accused of more offences
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 be charged with,
and tried at one trial for, any number of them
not exceeding three.
(2) Offences are of the same kind when they
are punishable with the same amount of
 punishment under the same section of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ) or of any
special or local law: Provided that, for the
purposes of this section, an offence punishable
under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860 ) shall be deemed to be an offence of
the same kind as an offence punishable under
section 380 of the said Code, and that an
offence punishable under any section of the
said Code, or of any special or local law, shall
be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as
an attempt to commit such offence, when such
an attempt is an offence.”

A bare persual of Section 219 of 'The Code' will

reveal that it confers a discretion on the Court to jointly try
three offences of the same kind if the same have been
committed by the same accused within a period of one year.
Section 219 of 'The Code' does not confer any right on the
accused to be tried jointly, even if the offences are alleged
to have been committed within a span of 1 year. Provisions
of Section 219 of 'The Code' are to facilitate the Court in
expeditious trial and to avoid duplicity, however, if the
allegations are different, cause of action is different, the
complainant is different, then joint trial of such offences
though, committed within a period of one year, may not
fulfil the desired objective.
The plea that the petitioners shall be prejudiced if the
trials are conducted separately, because his defence will be
disclosed, does not hold water because in each of the cases
necessary requirements with regard to offence under
Section 138 of 'The NI Act' shall have to seen on the basis
of the evidence adduced in such case and the averments
made in the complaint. Obviously, Section 219 of 'The
Code' does not confer any right on the accused to be tried
in a joint trial.
In view of the aforesaid, no fault can be found with
the impugned order. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed
in limine.
Certified copy as per rules.

(Ved Prakash Sharma)

skt Judge