J.B. KoShy, J.

A private complaint dated 17.6.1998 (Ext. PI) was filed by the 4th respondent before The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. It was forwarded to the Fort Police Station and crime was registered as Crime No. 194/98. Ext. P2 is the copy of the F.I.R. in the above crime. After investigation Ext. P3 charge sheet was filed. Petitioner was the third accused in the case. The accused 1 and 2 on the one side and respondents 4 and 5 on the other side claimed management of a Training College owned by Kerala Nadar Mahajana Sangham. There are several litigations between them. Main allegation against the petitioner in the complaint was that he colluded with accused No. 2 in preparing a forged resignation letter of the fourth respondent from the Sangham and registered the same. Petitioner was the District Registrar at that time. Charges were made for offences under Ss.120(B), 465, 468 & 471 of I.P.C.

2. This Writ Petition is filed to quash Exts. P2 and P3 F.I.R. and Charge Sheet as far as it is against the petitioner or for a direction to reinvestigate the matter by another officer. There is an allegation in the Original Petition that investigation was conducted by 3rd respondent who is a close relative of 5th respondent and complaint itself was filed at the instigation of the 5th respondent to grab the management of a Training College owned by the Sangham. Several cases are pending regarding the management of the training college in which 5th respondent is also a party. Interim stay of the proceedings pursuant to Exts. PI to P3 were obtained by the petitioner. Fifth respondent filed a counter affidavit denying any kind of relationship with himself and 3rd respondent Investigating Officer.

3. Only two grounds are pressed when the case came up today before me. First ground is that proceedings are not maintainable as no sanction was obtained under S.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even though offences in the charge sheet and complaint were alleged to have committed while discharging official duty as a public servant. Court should not have taken cognizance of the same before previous sanction. The second contention is that in the charge sheet several offences are mentioned. Since more than three offences are mentioned, there is violative of S.219 of Cr. P.C. and trial based on Ext. P3 charge sheet is illegal.

4. I am dealing with the second ground of attack at the outset. S.219 of the Cr. P.C. is an enabling provision and an exception to S.218. S.218 provides that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately. This provision is subject to the exceptions provided under sub-s.(2) of S.218 Cr. P.C. Ss.219, 220, 221 & 223 are the exceptions to the general rule prescribed under S.218 Cr. P.C. S.219 contemplates a different situation and enables to charge sheet and try together when a person is accused of more offences than one subject to a maximum of three committed within a period of 12 months provided the offences are of the same kind. Here this section is not at all applicable. Here all the offences are committed in one series of acts, so committed together as to form the same transaction. S.220(1) of Cr. P.C. provides as follows.

"220. Trial for more than one offence -

(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for, every such offence."

S.223 Cr. P.C. provides as follows.

"223. What persons may be charged jointly -

The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely.

(a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction

(d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction."

Ss.220 & 223 are not controlled by S.218 or 219. In respect of offences committed in the course of one transaction, the limi