Vani Agro Enterprises Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (Supreme Court)
Summary: The Supreme Court considered the appellant’s request concerning four complaints arising from four dishonoured cheques. The respondent no.2 had issued one notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in respect of the bouncing of all four cheques. The complaints were filed in 1999 and had remained pending for 20 years. The Court recorded that the proceedings had been delayed because of the appellant’s application seeking consolidation of all four complaints and their joint hearing. Even the evidence had not been recorded.
The principal contention was founded on Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant contended that, since the offences had taken place within a period of one year, the cases should be dealt with together. The Supreme Court observed that even if Section 219 were applicable, it permitted not more than three cases to be tried together. Consequently, four cases could not all be tried together under that provision and there would have to be two trials.
The appellant also contended that because a single notice had been issued in relation to all four cheques, separate trials should not take place and there should instead be one trial. The Court rejected that contention, observing that there was no provision for consolidation of cases in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
While declining the requested consolidation, the Supreme Court granted a limited practical relief. It directed the Trial Magistrate to fix all four cases on one date so that both parties could conveniently attend the hearings of all four matters on that date. The trial Court was left free to record the evidence in the manner it considered appropriate. Having regard to the fact that the original complaints had been filed in 1999, the Magistrate was further directed to conduct day-to-day hearings and dispose of the complaints latest by 31.12.2019. The appeals were accordingly disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF SUPREME COURT
The appellant herein is alleged to have issued four cheques to the respondent no.2 which allegedly bounced. The respondent no.2 sent one notice in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments At, 1881 with regard to bouncing of all the four cheques. Thereafter, complaints were filed in the year 1999 and these complaints have dragged on for 20 years only on the application of the appellant herein that all the four complaints should be consolidated and heard together.
Whether these cases had been heard together or separately, they would have been decided by now only because of the interim proceedings, even the evidence has not been recorded.
The main ground raised is that in terms of Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the offences took place during the period of one year, the cases should be dealt together. Even if Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to apply, there have to be two trials because not more than three cases can be tried together even if they occurred in one year.
The only other contention is that since one notice has been issued, four separate trials should not take place and one trial should take place. There is no provision of consolidation of cases in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The only relief that can be granted to the appellant is that we direct the Trial Magistrate to fix all the four cases on one date so that it is convenient to both the parties to attend the hearing of all the four cases on one date.
It shall be open to the trial Court to record the evidence in the manner it feels like. Since the original complaints were filed in the year 1999, we direct the Magistrate to fix day to day hearing in the matters and dispose of these complaints latest by 31.12.2019.
In terms of the above, the appeals are disposed of.
