Consolidation of charges and a single trial can be ordered for cases involving similar offences, a common accused, and a common transaction, as per Section 223(d) of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Criminal Revisions filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records in unnumbered C.M.P. in C.C.No.34/2013, C.C.No.36/2013 & C.C.No.35/2013 respectively on the file of learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore, and to set aside the order dated 28th October 2021, and to direct the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore to try C.C.No.34/2013, C.C.No.36/2013 & C.C.No.35/2013 in one trial.)

Common Order:

1. The revision petitioner herein is arrayed as an accused in three different cases along with few other persons. He has now come forward with three separate revisions challenging the orders passed by the TNPID Court, Coimbatore in three unnumbered Crl.MPs in C.C.No.34/2013, C.C.No.36/2013 & C.C.No.35/2013, all dated 28.10.2021.

2.1 A certain M/s.Jenith Herbals (A1), stated to be an unregistered firm (in law it should be considered as an association of persons) and its affairs are under the control of one Jagadeesan (A2). The allegation is that many have made deposits in M/s.Jenith Herbals, for mobilising which, Jagadeesan had engaged several canvassing-agents. Ultimately, when the depositors wanted their money back, Jagadeesan could not make any payments.

2.2 This led to three sets of depositors preferring three independent complaints before the respondent, based on which three separate cases in Crime Nos.24/2012, 25/2012 and 26/ 2012 came to be registered. The respondent-Investigating Agency concluded its investigation in all the three cases and filed its separate final reports, which the TNPID Court, Coimbatore, had taken cognizance of and are now pending in its record as C.C.No.34/2013, C.C.No.35/2013 and C.C.No.36/2013.

2.3 While not all the accused persons in C.C.34 of 2013 are not the accused persons in C.C.35 of 2013 and C.C.36 of 2013, the accused persons in the last two cases are accused in C.C.34 of 2013. This will be evident from the following two tables:

Table – I

Table – II

2.4 In all the cases, the trial court has framed charges against all the accused persons under Sections 120(B), 107, 406& 420 IPC and an offence under Section 5 of TNPID Act.

3. A2-Jagadeesan has since absconded, consequent to which, the case against A1 and A2 split up, and the split-up cases are pending in C.C.No.10/2021, C.C.No.11/2021 and C.C.No.12/2021.

4. What becomes instantly evident is that three successive FIRs were registered against the same financial institution for the same offence said to have been committed within the same period of 10 months prior to 26.05.2012, and / or prior to 26.05.2012 & 29.05.2012. To start with, the investigating agency only needed to have registered only one case, and should have treated the defacto complainants in the other two cases as victim-witnesses. For reasons best to known to it, it did not choose to do it, and investigated them and laid separate final reports. The trial court too