The main legal point established is that while common witnesses and documents may exist, the distinct and separate nature of the offences must be considered in deciding whether cases should be tried together.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to order transfer of all the records in C.C.No.6282 of 2017 now on the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore at Chennai to Court of learned XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and to hold the trial of the same together with the C.C.No.20 of 2017.

1. The petitioner, who is an accused in C.C.No.6282 of 2017 filed this petition seeking transfer of the case to the file of the XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and to hold trial together with C.C.No.20 of 2017.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on source information, a case came to be registered in Crime No.CBI/ACB/CHENNAI in RC MA1 2015 A 0023 for the offence under Sections 7, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, who is a public servant. On completion of investigation, the respondent filed two final reports before two different Courts. One is C.C.No.6282 of 2017 and another is C.C.No.20 of 2017. In C.C.No.6282 of 2017, the petitioner is the single accused, who is facing trial for the offence under Section 420 of IPC before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in which 83 witnesses were examined 177 documents were collected. As regards, C.C.No.20 of 2017, pending on the file of the XIII Additional Special Judge, CBI Cases, Chennai, the petitioner is facing trial along with three others, who are the family members of late M.Manuneethi Cholan, former Registrar of Companies for the offence under Sections 120(B) of IPC r/w 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in which there are 128 witnesses were examined and 246 documents were collected.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submitted that for fair and impartial trial, the cases which are presently being tried before two different Courts, in the interest of general convenience of parties and witnesses and interest of Justice, both cases are to be tried together in one Court. He would further submitted that both the cases arise out of common FIR and relying upon the principles of Section 223(D) and 269 of Cr.P.C., he made his contention. The witnesses are common in both the cases. If common witnesses are cross-examined in one case, the witnesses would become vulnerable and the prosecution would try to fill up the lacuna in this case.

4. Further, the prosecution would be burdened to conduct two different cases on common set of evidence before two different Courts and it would add up reputation and confusion. The petitioner being an elderly person of 74 years have to attend both the cases would cause great hardship. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following citations:-

1. Essar Teleholdings Limited Versus Registrar General, Delhi High Court and others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 1.

2. HCL Infotech System Limited Versus Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2016) 9 SCC 281.

The Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI Cases) appearing for the respondent had filed a counter and made the submissions that on completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C has been filed before the learned Principal Sessions Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai against the family members of public servant in C.C.No.20 of 2017 and trial in this case is in progress. During the course of investigation distinct offences committed by the late M.Manuneethi Cholan and his close associate, the petitioner came to light. Since, the prime accused died before filing final reports, the final report-II against the private individual ie., the petitioner herein for the offence under Section 420 of IPC have been filed before the learned Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. Subsequently, the final report