IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3502 of 2008() ------------------------- CRRP.89/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.255/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- SHAJAHAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. ABUSHEHMAN KUNJU, SHAJI NILAYAM, PANAVOOR, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 3502 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for joint trial of 40 cases pending against him raising identical allegations in respect of offences allegedly committed against different persons. He faces allegations for offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 420 I.P.C. as also under the provisions of the Emigration Act and Rules. 2. The crux of the allegations is that he promised employment to various job seekers and fraudulently induced them to part with money. Jobs were not provided. His conduct offended the provisions of the Emigration Act and the Rules also. Identical allegations are raised in respect of 40 different individuals and 40 different cases are filed. Investigation commenced in one crime. But 40 different final reports were filed. Crl.M.C.No. 3502 of 2008 2 3. The petitioner moved the learned Magistrate with a request that joint trial may be conducted. He made the requisite application under the proviso to Section 218(1) Cr.P.C. The application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the ground that consolidation of allegations in 40 different cases would make the trial very cumbersome. The learned Sessions Judge, before whom revision was filed, also concurred with the learned Magistrate and dismissed the revision petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that substantially the witnesses to be examined are the same, except the individuals against whom the alleged offences are committed. Consolidation of the proceedings and joint trial shall serve the interests of justice. It will substantially help the accused in the defence set up by him. It will help the court as also the prosecution to complete the prosecution expeditiously. 5. Notice given and the learned Prosecutor suggests that ten cases each can be consolidated and four trials can be conducted, consolidating in each trial the charges in ten cases. Crl.M.C.No. 3502 of 2008 3 6. I find the said stand taken by the learned Prosecutor is absolutely justified. It shall serve the interests of justice eminently. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this Crl.M.C. can be allowed and appropriate directions can be issued. 7. This Crl.M.C. is allowed. The petitioner shall apply before the learned Magistrate under the proviso to Section 218(1) Cr.P.C. that the charges in ten cases may be tried jointly and that four trials may be held to cover the charges raised in all the 40 cases. If such application is filed by the petitioner specifying the ten cases to be taken up for joint trial in each of the four joint trials, the learned Magistrate shall allow the same and proceed accordingly. (R. BASANT) Judge tm