The court clarified that multiple offences involving the same transaction can be consolidated into a single charge, aligning with provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

ORDER

This case was taken up through video conferencing.

2. This criminal original petition has been preferred seeking a direction to the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Salem, to frame a single charge for the commission of offences under Sections 409 , 468 and 471 IPC in C.C.No.34 of 2009 by clubbing 22 cases viz., C.C.Nos.34 to 55 of 2009 pending trial on the file of the said Court.

3. On a complaint lodged by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Attayampatti Branch, the police registered a case in Crime No.68 of 2005 on 01.08.2005 for the offences under Sections 468 , 471 and 477-A IPC against Sivaraman, the petitioner herein, and after completing the investigation, filed 22 final reports viz., C.C.Nos.34 to 55 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Salem, for the offences under Sections 409 , 467 and 471 .

4. The nub of the allegation against the petitioner is that, while he was working as Single Window Operator (Cash) in the State Bank of India, Attayampatti Branch, from 09.07.2004 to 20.04.2005, he had forged the signature of some account holders, withdrawn monies from their accounts and misappropriated them. The total amount of misappropriation was worked out at Rs.9,70,000/-. It appears that 22 final reports were filed on the premise that the provisions of Section 219 Cr.P.C. will stand attracted in this case, limiting each final report to three transactions.

5. Complaining that undue prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if 66 (22x3) charges are framed against him, this petition has been filed invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking framing of a single charge as laid down in Section 212 (2) Cr.P.C. by clubbing the 22 cases.

6. Heard Mr.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.K. Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent/State.

7. Mrs. Kritika Kamal submitted that the 22 cases viz., C.C.Nos.34 to 55 of 2009 have been transferred from the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.IV, Salem, to the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Salem and they have been re-numbered as C.C.Nos.185 to 203, 205, 206 and 209 of 2018.

8. This Court perused the memorandum of evidence appended to the final reports and found that out of eleven witnesses cited in each final report, ten witnesses are common in all the cases and the name of only one witness viz., the bank customer, who was cheated, alone differs.

9. The moot question is, will Section 212 (2) Cr.P.C. apply to this case.

10. This Court pored over the records and prepared the following table for easy understanding of the indictment against the petitioner in each case.

11. Mrs. Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ranchhod Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1965 SC 1248 submitted that the petitioner's prayer to have a single trial is not maintainable.

12. Per contra, Mr. Jayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav , (2017) 8 SCC 1 and the judgment of this Court in Subbiah Konar vs. State , 2019 - 2 - L.W. (Crl.) 531to justify the prayer.

13. To appreciate the rival contentions, it may be necessary to reduce to simple terms, the gravamen of the allegations against the petitioner by referring to some specific indictments against him.

14. For example, let us take the allegations in C.C. No.185 of 2018, wherein, it is alleged that the petitioner had withdrawn Rs.5,000/- from the account of Palanichamy on 18.02.2005; Rs.25,00