Disposed

Ravindran.T.I v. E.v.Mohandas

Kerala HC14 Jun 2017Crl.MC/3095/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by a complainant seeking joint trial of four money-laundering cases involving the same accused. The Court directed the accused to submit Section 220(1) Cr.P.C. application and the Magistrate to consider it under specific legal principles.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file Section 220(1) Cr.P.C. application; Magistrate to consider the application with notice to accused and render a decision within six weeks.

Ravindran.T.I Vs E.v.Mohandas — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/24TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3095 of 2017 ()

¶6

CC 1656/2014 ,CC NO.2391/2014, CC NO. 1606/2014 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

-----

¶8

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT :

¶9

----------------------

¶10

RAVINDRAN.T.I, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. ITTARU, THAIVALAPPIL HOUSE,FLAT NO. 52, NAVANI APPARTMENTS, ZARANA MISSION ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU, TRICHUR - 680 020.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE :

¶13

-----------------------------

¶14

1. E.V. MOHANDAS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, EDAKKADAN HOUSE, KANNAMKULANGARA, KOORKENCHERRY P.O, TRICHUR - 680 007.

¶15

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶16

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALETTY

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 3095 of 2017 ()

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRICHUR IN C.C NO. 1656/14. ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRICHUR IN C.C NO. 2391/14 ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRICHUR IN C.C NO. 1606/4 ANNEXURE IV: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRICHUR IN C.C NO. 2552/14 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ==================

¶28

Crl.M.C.No.3095 of 2017

¶29

==================

¶30

Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2017 O R D E R

¶31

The petitioner is the complainant in C.C.Nos.1656/2014, 2391/ 2014, 1606/2014 and 2552/2014 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Trichur, which are filed alleging offence punishable under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the 1^st respondent herein (accused). The prayer in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is as follows:

¶32

“.... to issue direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trichur, to try all the cases together (C.C.No.1656/14, C.C.No. 2391/14, C.C.No. 1606/14 and C.C.No. 2552/14 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trichur) in the interest of justice.”

¶33

After admitting this Crl.M.C., though notice has been duly served on R-1 accused, there is appearance for that party.

¶34

Heard Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (complainant) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. As indicated herein above, in spite of due service of notice on R-1, there is no appearance for that party.

¶35

Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner complainant submits that all the four dishonoured cheques involved in each of these four cases have been issued by the same accused and that it was presented on the same day and the dishonour memos were issued by the bank concerned on the same day. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would place reliance on the

¶36

Crl.M.C.3095/17 - : 2 :-

¶37

judgment of this Court in the case Mohammed v. State of Kerala reported in 2004(3) KLT 330 = 2004 KHC 1129 = 2004 (2) KLJ 447, wherein it has been held that a case involved six complaints in respect of the six separate cheques, which were dishonoured on the same day, in discharge of the total liability owed by the accused to the complainant must be held to be part of the same transaction as envisaged in Sec.220 (1) of the Cr.P.C. and that the provisions contained in Sec. 220(1) of the Cr.P.C. would squarely apply to the said case. Reference may be made to paras 8 and 9 of the said judgment (see KHC report), which read as follows:

¶38

' 8. Proviso to S.218(1) is not applicable as accused is not willing to follow that course. S.219 cannot also be made applicable because there are more offences than three. The only question therefore is whether S.221 can be applied and that can be applied only if the issue of the six cheques can be said to be acts, so connected together as form the same transaction. In the decision reported in Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar, 2001 (4) SCC 350, Supreme Court has lucidly referred to the principles which have to be borne in the mind to decide whether offences can be reckoned as part of the same transaction. I shall only advert to the relevant passage.

¶39

"It may be noticed that under S.220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences more than one committed by the same persons could be tried at one trial, if they can be held to be one series of acts, so as to form the same transaction. The expression "same transaction" from its very nature is incapable of an exact definition. It is not intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical sense. Common sense and the ordinary use of language must decide whether on the facts of a particular case, it can be held to be in one transaction. It is not possible to enunciate any comprehensive formula of universal application for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction. But the circumstances of a given case indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design are the factors for deciding whether certain acts form parts of the same transaction or not. Therefore, a series of acts whether are to be connected together as to form the same transaction is purely a question of fact to be decided on the aforesaid criteria".

¶40

In the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion

¶41

Crl.M.C.3095/17 - : 3 :-

¶42

that the offences in respect of six cheques must certainly be held to be part of the same transaction considering the purpose, the sequence, events, nature of the allegation, proximity of commission, unity of action etc. Therefore, it appears to be easy to conclude that the offences under S.138 in respect of those cheques can easily be held to be offences committed in the course of same transaction. If that be so, S.220(1) squarely applies.'

¶43

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that in case the petitioner submits an application by invoking the provisions contained in Sec.220(1)of the Cr.P.C. seeking the plea of joint trial, then the learned Magistrate shall consider the said application on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to complainant as well as the accused and will render a considered decision thereon in the light of the legal principles laid down by this Court in the aforecited judgment reported in 2004(3) KLT 330= 2004 KHC 1129. The petitioner may file such application without much delay along with a certified copy of this order, upon which, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same as directed herein above and pass necessary orders without much delay, at least within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the said application.

¶44

With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned Crl.M.C. stands finally disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

sdk+

¶47

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶48

///True Copy///

¶49

P.S. to Judge

¶50

Crl.M.C.3095/17 - : 4 :-

Ravindran.T.I v. E.v.Mohandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindran.T.I v. E.v.Mohandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

George Varghese Vs Joy G.

Raghavan Vs the State of Kerala

Tharammal Pavithran Vs M.P.Haris

Muhammed Basheer Vs Geetha

Kalladikkattil Mohammed Jamal Vs State of Kerala

Abdulla Kallar Kuzhiyil Vs State of Kerala