The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of whether acts form part of the same transaction requires proximity of time, place, continuity of action, and community of purpose or design. The court emphasized the need for a strong circumstance indicating unity of purpose or design to infer that acts form part of the same transaction.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By this order, I propose to dispose of all the criminal petitions enlisted above, which have arisen out of the applications made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the orders, dated 13-4-2007 passed, in Special Case Nos. 5/2006 to 20/2006, whereby the learned Special Judge, CBI, Guwahati, Assam, has rejected the prayer made by the present petitioners, who are accused in the cases aforementioned, to amalgamate and try all the cases together as one case.

2. Broadly speaking, the facts leading to the impugned order are that during the year 1995-98, the Telecom Department, which is, now, known as BSNL, awarded contracts to various contractors for the purpose of trenching of various parts of Imphal-Moreh route and Imphal-Chandrapur route, on National High Way No. 37, in the State of Manipur, and laying of optical fibre cables oh the routes aforementioned, which were divided into several sub-sections. Following the execution of the contract works, so awarded, and payment of the bills made, in this regard, several First Information Reports came to be registered against various contractors, who had been awarded the contract works, and also some officers and employees of the Telecom Department, on accusations of commission of the offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating and misappropriation. On completion of investigation, charge-sheets were laid by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, 'the CBI'). The present petitioners, who are accused in the said cases, applied, in the Court of the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Guwahati, for amalgamation of all the cases so that there could be one trial in respect of all the cases. By the order, dated 13-4-2007, as the learned Court below has rejected the prayer, so made, the petitioners have, now, come to this Court with the present applications made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482, Cr.P.C.

3. I have heard Mr. D.S. Choudhury and Mr. A. Hussain, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioners. I have also heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the CBI, Mr. S. Muktar, and Mr. A.C. Dey, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the accused-respondents.

4. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Choudhry, learned Counsel, submits that under the provisions of Section 223(d), Cr. P.C, persons, who are accused of having committed different offences in the course of the same transactions, may be charged and tried together. Mr. Choudhury also submits that in view of the fact that in the case at hand, all the contracts, In question, are of the same nature and though the contract works stood divided into several parts, the same involved the same High Way, that is, the National High Way No. 37, the petitioners were wholly justified in seeking appropriate order from the learned Court below directing a joint trial of all the accused involved in all the cases aforementioned. Referring to the case of Mohan Baitha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2001 CriLJ 1738 , Mr. Choudhury submits that the expression 'same transaction', which appears in Section 223(d), cannot be equated with one transaction and that even a series of transactions may, in a given case, be treated as forming part of the same transaction.

5. In the case at hand, the learned trial Court, according to Mr. Choudhury, has seriously fallen into error in omitting to take note of the fact that the cases, which the CBI has investigated according to its own convenience, essentially involved same type of contract works forming broadly speaking, part of the same transaction and, hence, in such circumstances, the learned Court below ought to have amalgamated all the cases into one case so as to avoid delay and also possibility of prejudice, which such delay may cause to all the accused.

6. Contraverting the submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioners, Mr.D.K. Das, learned Senior Counsel, submi