Aurangabad. Purnawadi Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd. Beed, Branch Kada, Tq. Ashti, Dist.Beed v. Atul]. In view of this position of law, this Court holds that

The State of Maharashtra [Copy to be served on P.P. High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. Purnawadi Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd. Beed, Branch Kada, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. Through its branch Manager. ..... Shri B.R.Kedar, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.B.Patil, APP for State Shri M.M.Patil, Advocate for respondent no.2. ..... .. PETITIONER .. RESPONDENTS CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 18TH OCTOBER 2012. ORAL ORDER : The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order made by JMFC, Ashti 2 criwp810-11.odt and the decision given by Sessions Court, Beed in Criminal Revision Application No.18/11. Both sides are heard. 2] Respondent no.2 has filed four cases for offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against petitioner and all the cases are pending in the Court of JMFC, Ashti. The petitioner accused filed application before JMFC and requested to club all the cases and decide them by common judgment. The Magistrate rejected application by holding that the provision of Section 219 of Cr.P.C. is discretionary and in the present case, different causes of action were there for filing four complaints. The Sessions Court has confirmed this decision. 3] It was submitted for the petitioner that though all the four cases cannot be clubbed in one case, in view of the limits given in Section 219 of Cr.P.C. the two cases like S.C.C.NO.69/06 and 192/10 can be clubbed together as the offences in these two cases were committed in the same year. Similar submission was made in respect of the remaining two cases. 4] The provision of Section 219 of Cr.P.C. shows that it is a discretionary power of the Court to club three cases of similar type when the offences are committed in one year. It can be said that it would mainly depend upon the desire of the prosecution and then the discretion of the Magistrate. No right as such is given to the accused in this regard. This High Court has considered this point 3 criwp810-11.odt in a case reported as 2007 All M.R. [Cri] 3403 [Ranjana V/s Atul]. In view of this position of law, this Court holds that the Courts below have not committed any error. Further it was submitted for the complainant that all the four cases are now part heard, the evidence is given by complainant and in some cases cross examination is started. In view of these circumstances, Petition stands dismissed. umg/criwp810-11 [T.V.NALAWADE,J.]