The Kerala High Court in the case M/S De-Fab V Priya Varma observed and has held that it not being obligatory for the court in order to conduct a joint trial under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as it is upon the discretion of the court to allow a joint rail or not.
The single bench headed by Justice V G Arun in the case observed in a dispute that arose between partners of a firm. Therefore, the court in the case referred the parties to mediation and the matter was settled on the term that one of the partners i.e., the second petitioner would pay an amount of Rs. 2 Crores to the Respondent as the full and final settlement in the 32 instalments.
However, the court in the case observed that some of the cheques were being paid to the respondent which got dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and some got dishonoured due to the payment stopped. Subsequently, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
In the present case, seven cases were being instituted by the respondent, wherein the plea has been filed by the accused for the joint trial of the cases. Thus, the magistrate refused the said petition or joint trial. Aggrieved with the same, the accused then in the case approached the High Court against the order of the Magistrate.
It has also been observed by the bench that as all the cheques bear different dates and since the cheques have been dishonoured on different dates, wherein taking of composite evidence the same would lead to confusion. Therefore, the court in the case refused the trial to allow for better appreciation of evidence.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner contended before the court that as per the provisions to section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate in the case has power to order a joint trial if the accused will not be prejudiced by the same. Further, it has also been contended that under Section 220(1) if more than one offence is committed by the same person, in the series of acts the that form part of the same transaction. Thus, in one single trail all offences can be tried. The petitioner in the plea argued before the court that since the cheques were issued as part of the settlement between the parties, it forms part of the same transaction and hence the cheques had to be tried together.
On the other hand, it has been argued by the respondent that the cause of action being different in every case, since each cheque issued has a different date and was presented and being dishonoured on different dates and the court issued the notices on different dates and hence it cannot form part of the same transaction.
Further, it has been held by the High Court in the case that there being no such reason to interfere with the order of the Magistrate as the Magistrate had rightly concluded that a joint trial would not be feasible.
The counsels, Adv. S.Rajeev S, Adv V.Vinay, Adv M.S.Aneer, Adv Prerith Philip Joseph, Adv Sarath K.P appeared for the Petitioners.
The counsels, Adv. PMohandas, Adv. P K Sudhinkumar, Adv. Sabu Pullan Adv. Gokul D Sudhakara, Adv. R Bhaskara Krishnan, Sr. Adv. K P Satheesan represented the respondent.
