CRLRC/2517/2012 of Dinesh C Jain Vs M/s.Sidhartha Impex, on 31 December 2012

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated03.12.2012, passed in C.C.No.204 of 2012 on the file of XSpecial Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learnedMagistrate ordered for trial in C.C.Nos.204, 205 and 206 of 2012simultaneously.

2. The petitioner is the accused and the 1[st] respondent is thecomplainant in C.C.No.204 of 2012. The accused filedCrl.M.P.No.1961 of 2012 under Section 219 Cr.P.C. for clubbingC.C.Nos.205 and 206 of 2012 with C.C.No.204 of 2012 and conductcommon trial. The learned X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, by order,dated 22.11.2012, directed for common trial in all the three CalendarCases since the parties as well as the offence in all the three casesare one and the same. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevantportion of the order, dated 22.11.2012 and it is thus:

“Heard the counsel for both parties. Perused the record in C.C.No.204/2012,C.C.No.205/2012 and C.C.No.206 of 2012 in which accused is the one and the sameperson and the causes of action for 3 transactions had been taken place in the sameyear 2012 and the legal notice issued on 28.02.2012 in all three cases. During the course of hearing the counsel for Petitioner/Accused read the provision of Law underSection 219 Cr.P.C. which contemplates as hereunder S.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 samekind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last ofsuch offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may becharged with, and tried at one trial, for any number of them not exceedingthree.

(2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with thesame amount of punishment under the same section of Indian Penal Code,1860 (45 of 1960), or of any special or local law :

Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishableunder S.379 of the Indian Penal Code 45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be anoffence of the same kind as an offence punishable under Section 380 of thesaid Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the saidCode, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of thesame kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt isan offence.”

Though these cases are filed under special acts, but sub-section (2)of S.219 Cr.P.C. clearly says that either the offence may be Indian PenalCode or any Special or local law. From it is clear that there is no embargo toclub together for common trial in all three cases as the offence under Section138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in all cases and causes of action duringthe same year against the same accused. Hence, I am inclined to allow thispetition and the petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.”

Subsequently, the learned X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, by order,dated 03.12.2012, directed for trial of all the three cases viz.,C.C.Nos.204, 205 and 206 of 2012 simultaneously. The said order isassailed in this revision case.

3. Heard Sri G.Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner/accused and Sri E.Manohar, learned senior counselrepresenting Sri P.Kamalakar, learned counsel appearing for the 1[st]respondent/complainant.

4. As seen from the material placed on record, the learned XSpecial Magistrate, Hyderabad, passed an order, dated 22.11.2012, inCrl.M.P.No.1961 of 2012 for trial in all the three cases together. Thecomplainant did not choose to question the said order. But, thelearned X Special Magistrate without noticing the order, dated22.11.2012, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1961 of 2012, proceeded to order trial in all the three cases simultaneously. The docket order, dated03.12.2012, is contrary to the order, dated 22.11.2012, passed inCrl.M.P.No.1961 of 2012.

5. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting asidethe order, dated 03.12.2012, passed in C.C.No.204 of 2012 on the fileof X Special Magistrate, Hyderabad.

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1[st]respondent/complainant seeks a direction to the trial Court to expeditethe trial in C.C.Nos.204, 205 and 206 of 2012.

7. In that view of the matter, the trial Court is directed to dispose ofthe C.C.Nos.204, 205 and 206 of 2012 as expeditiously as possible,preferably within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisOrder.

Date:31[st] December, 2012.cs

______________________

B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

Criminal Revision Case No.2517 of 2012

Date:31st December, 2012