( 1 ) THIS petition under lection 482 of the Cr. P. C. hasbeen filed for cluting me charges framed in the cases F. I. R. 35/88 and 37/88pending in the Court of Mr. V. S. Aggarwal, A. S. J. , Delhi. Brief facts necessary todispose of thisi application are recaptulated as under:

( 2 ) SUB Inspector Prithvipal Singh of Police Station, Chandni Mahal receiveda secret information that a person narned Bhajan Singh was distributing Herointhrough his agents. The information was passed on to the concerned S. H. O. byprithvipal Singh, Sub Inspesctor. A raiding party was formed joining policeofficials and two persons from the public. The police vehicles were left at policepost Turkman Gate and the raiding party was Left to Chowk Ghaday Wailan neardda Park. At about 1:15 p. m. the said Sub Jn. -. pectorand Head Constable Ramdiya apprehended the petitioner who was allegedly carrying a green colouredattachi case was going on foot towards bazar Chitli Kabar. From that attachi case10 packets of polythene bags wrapped in a white towel containing Heroin wererecovered.

( 3 ) THE police arrested the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner made adisclosure statement to the effect that he had kept 2 Kgs. of Heroin out of totalquantity of 12 Kgs. in his house, which was given to him by co-accused Pinkiguizar at 9:30a. m. on 15. 3. 1988 and he further mentioned in his statement thathe could get that packet recovered from his house. The petitioner opened the lockof his house with the keys which he allegedly took from underneath a flower-potin front of his house and then from a store inside the bed-room of the house heallegedly produced a packet of polythene paper which contained the 2 Kgs. ofheroin. S. H. O. S. K. Ahuja of Police Station Rajinder Nagar also reached therealongwith his police staff. A separate case was registered against the petitioner forthis alleged recovery at Police Station Rajinder Nagar vide F. I. R. 37/88 and-separate challan was filed at Police Station, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi.

( 4 ) MR. Naseem, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted thatboth these F. I. Rs relate to the same transaction. The police instead of filing onecomposite F. I. R. had filed two separate F. I. Rs. Consequently, two separatesessions trials have been initiated against the Petitioner for one offence.

( 5 ) THE petitioner moved the Additional Sessions Judge for clubbing of twocauses and prayed for one composite trial for committing one offence. Though thelearned Sessions Judge ordered that both the cases would be tried by one Court butthe main grievance of the petitioner has not been remedied as to why thepetitioner be compelled to face and he is facing two separate criminal trials forcommitting one offence. The clubbing of both the cases has been left to thediscretion of the learned Trial Court.

( 6 ) ON 29/01/1994, Mr. V. S. Aggarwal, learned Additional Sessionsjudge framed a separate charge under Section 21 of NDPS Act, in the case F. I. R. 35/88.

( 7 ) IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was arguedby him before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that though the recoverieswere separate but it related to one transaction, therefore, only one charge oughtto have been framed according to the provisions of Section 220 of the Cr. P. C. Section 220 reads as under:-

220. Trial for more than one offence.- (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the sametransaction, more offences than one are committed by the sameperson, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every suchoffence. (2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breachof trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided insub-section (2) of Section 212 or in Sub-section (1) of Section 219, isaccused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing thecommission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences offalsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and t