O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated

22.11.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.483 of 2019 in Spl. C.C.No.4 of 2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Salem.

2.The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner is A7 facing trial in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 2019 along with 6 other accused for offence under Sections 120B read with 167, 477A, 420, 409 IPC read with 13(2), 13 (1) (C) and (d) of PC Act and 120 of IPC read with 167, 477A, 420, 409 read with 109 IPC and 109 read with 13(2) read with 13(1) (C) and (d) of PC Act. The petitioner is also an accused in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2019 and facing trial along with 7 other accused for offence under Sections 120B read with 167, 477A, 420, 409 IPC read with 13(2), 13 (1) (C) and (d) of PC Act and 120 of IPC read with 167, 477A, 420, 409 read with 109 IPC and 109 read with 13(2) read with 13(1) (C) and (d) of PC Act. The allegation in both the charge sheets is that the accused A1 to A3 hatched criminal conspiracy along with A4 to A8, private individuals to misappropriate public money by entertaining the bogus claim applications from the SC/ST students as if, they have been studying in the institutions (non-existing and existing) and with the connivance of private individuals A4 to A8, committed misappropriation of the public money by framing incorrect documents, forgery and falsification of accounts and used the forged documents as genuine and further committed misappropriation of the Government funds granted to the SC/ST students as Post Metric Scholarship for the period from the year

2010 to 2011 and 2011 to 2012 at Salem.

3. The petitioner claiming that the charges against the petitioner and other accused in both the cases were similar and that the alleged occurrences are continuous occurrences raising out of a single crime number namely 7/AC/2013 and claiming that in both the cases most of the evidences, documents, accused and witnesses are common, had filed a petition under Section 220 and 223 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.483 of 2019 in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 2019 seeking to frame charges together in Spl.C.C.No.4 of 2019 and Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2019 and try both the cases together for single trial.

4. The respondent had filed a counter. In the counter it had been stated that originally the case in Crime No.7/AC/2013 was registered and investigated against the above accused and one accused was deleted from the charge sheet, since no case was made out against him. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had collected numerous documents and taking into consideration that there are distinct offences committed by the public servants with the aid of the other accused in committing offences of criminal misconduct, criminal breach of trust, misappropriation of funds by cheating, falsification of accounts and framing incorrect documents, the prosecution taking into consideration Section 23 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, had filed two separate charge sheets against the petitioner for various charges. Further, since the offences committed by each of the accused were distinct and that the period between the first and the last date of the offence were beyond one year, separate charge sheets had been filed under Section 23 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which is a special provision. It was further stated that as per Section 212 Cr.P.C. and Section 23 of Prevention of Corruption Act, since the charges were in respect of offences under Section 13(1)(c) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and which were committed beyond the period of 12 months, the petition for joint trial was not maintainable.

5. The trial Court finding that the charges were framed against different accused i.e in Spl.C.C.No4 of 2019 the charges had been framed against 7 accused and in Spl.C.C.No.5 of 2019, the charges had been framed against 8 accused and also finding that the charges were in respect of off