Point of law: Once the legislature under section 44 has not provided the power for consolidation of the cases triable at two different places, the court, in our view cannot direct the authorities to consolidate the case or by itself consolidate the cases triable at different places as the same would be in contravention to the statutory provision or it would amount to judicial legislation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and Surya Bhan Pandey, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for opposite parties no.2 and 3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are proprietors of a business firms, namely, Siddhi Traders, M/s Guru Kripa Enterprises and Saumya Prakashan. In connection with irregularities in the implementation of the National Rural Health Mission( NRHM), petitioners were named in three FIRs, namely, F.I.R.no.3A of 2012 under section 120-B I.P.C. read with sections 409, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, F.I.R. No.2A of 2012, under Sections 409,420,468 & 471 I.P.C. and section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and F.I.R. No. E0003 of 2012 under sections 409,420,468 & 471 I.P.C. and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in due course charge-sheet was submitted by CBI before Special Judge (CBI) in the aforesaid cases. The F.I.R. in RC No.2A of 2012 was registered as Case no.03 of 2012, F.I.R. in RC No.3A of 2012 was registered as case no.04 of 2013 and the F.I.R. No.E0003 of 2012 was registered as Case no.04 of 2012. The petitioners being named in the charge-sheet were summoned by the Special Court (CBI) at Ghazibad. The petitioners put in appearance and were enlarged on bail.

4. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that Enforcement Directorate, on the basis of the FIRs, registered three PMLA cases i.e. case no. 25 of 2018 (Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Saurabh Jain and others), case no.26 of 2018 (Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Saurabh Jain and others) and case no.13 of 2019 (State Vs. Babu Singh Kushwaha and others). The PMLA cases are pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Lucknow. The cases under the I.P.C. and Prevention of Corruption Act and the PMLA cases are pending and are proceeding simultaneously at two different places. All the PMLA cases have been registered on the basis of scheduled offences which are being tried before the Special Court (CBI) Ghaziabad.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the cases against the petitioners are pending at Lucknow and Ghaziabad, so in view of the provisions of section 44 (1) (a) and 44 (1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act,2002 ( herein after referred to as the 'Act,2002'), which is on reproduction reads as under, the cases pending against the petitioners be clubbed and be heard and decided together

"44. Offence triable by Special Courts : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-

(a) An offence punishable under section 4 and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed.

Provided that the Special Court, trying a scheduled offence before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to try such scheduled offence, or

(b)----------

(c) If the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is other than the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of money laundering under sub-clause(b), it shall, on an application by the authority authorized to file a complaint under this Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court and the Special Court shall, on receipt of such case proceed to deal with it from the stage at which it is committed.

(d) -----------------"

6. In consonance with Section 220 sub clause (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under:-

"220. Trial for more than one offence:

(1)------

(2)------------

(3) If the act alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the t