ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

3. By the present petition, filed by the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India prays that directions be issued to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur to club three complaints bearing STCC Nos.2317/2009, 2256/2009 and 2003/2009 together with each and be tried together.

4. The petitioner is the original accused and respondent No. 2 is the original complainant. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is practising as an Advocate at District and Sessions Court, Latur and respondent No.2 was having good relations with her and therefore the petitioner has borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rs. One lac) from the respondent No.2 by way of hand loan by issuing five blank account payee cheques. The petitioner contends that her husband expired on 6.11.2008 and respondent No.2 has taken undue advantage of the situation and started harassing the petitioner although entire payment was made, since blank cheques were lying with the respondent No.2. It is also contention of the respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 deposited said cheques in his bank account but same were dishonoured and were returned unpaid and therefore respondent No.2 issued statutory notices to the petitioner through his advocate. Petitioner replied to the said notices and denied entire liability but accepted the liability to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-and shown willingness to make the payment to that extent. However, respondent No.2 filed three separate criminal complaints against the petitioner immediately bearing STCC No.2256/2009, 2317/2009 and 2003/2009 under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur.

5. The petitioner appeared before the court on 30.3.2010 in pursuance of the summons of the above complaints filed by respondent No.2. There after, it is the contention of the petitioner that said complaints were listed for evidence. At that time, petitioner preferred an application under section 220 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code requesting that all said three complaints be combined and tried together and common charge be framed. However, said application came to be rejected by learned 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur on 30.3.2010 on the ground that respondent No.2/complainant has filed three cases for three separate dishonour of cheques, holding that transaction cannot be held to be a single transaction attracting the provisions of section 219 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 30.3.2010 the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision petitions before District and Sessions Court Latur bearing Criminal Revision No. 49/2010, 51/2010 and 52/2010. However, learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur dismissed said criminal Revision petitions on 16.6.2010 observing that the acts in the aforesaid cases cannot be regarded as constituting a single transaction and dishonour of each cheque constitutes a separate offence.

7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by both the said impugned orders, petitioner has approached to this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, issuing for necessary directions, as stated herein above.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, it is apparent that the controversy revolves around the aspect that whether dishonour of three cheques having three different dates thereon, on three separate dates, constitutes a single transaction, attracting the provisions of Section 219 of Code of Criminal Procedure

9. Admittedly, the respondent No.2 has filed three separate cases on the basis of dishonour of three separate cheques on different dates and on the basis of issuance of three separate statutory notices, in respect of each default, and therefore, it is amply clear that the aforesaid transactions cannot be construed as a single transaction, attracting the provisions of section 219 of Criminal Procedure Code, since the dishonour of each cheque constitutes a separate offence. Moreover, it is apparent that three separate cheques were issued by the petitioner on three different dates and said cheques were dishonoured on different dates and as mentioned herein above and three separate statutory notices were issued in respect of dishonour of each cheque and, therefore, also the said acts cannot be regarded as constituting single transaction since dishonour of each cheque constitutes a separate offence and therefore, learned 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Latur has rightly rejected the application preferred by the petitioner, and consequently, learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur has also rightly dismissed the Criminal Revision Petitions, preferred by the petitioner and no interference therein is called for in the present petition.

10. In the result, present petition being sans merit, stands dismissed and rule stands discharged.