IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 46 of 2010() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/03/2009 IN MP.239/2009 IN CC.540/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------------------- P.V.PAUL, S/O.VARKEY, PARAMBI VEEDU, NEAR MANGALASSERY CHURCH, SOUTH KORATTY KARA, KORATTY VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT IDJM, PARADISE, PALARIVATTOM BHAGAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE S.I OF POLICE, KARUPPUMPADY, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S U NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- Cr. MC No.46 of 2010-E ------------------------------------- Dated 28th January 2010 Order This is a petition filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have Annexure H order passed by the JFCM, Perumbavoor in MC No.239/09 in CC No.540/05 quashed and also for a direction to have CC Nos.540, 541, 542, 543 and 544/05 pending before the Court, tried jointly. 2. The petitioner is the accused in the above cases for having committed the offences punishable under Ss.408, 465 and 471 IPC. The allegation against him is that while he was functioning as the Deputy Manager of the Catholic Syrian Bank, Perumbavoor, he had committed misappropriation of funds. He is also accused of having committed forgery. The allegations relate to the period from 12.12.2001 to 31.12.2002. A copy of the complaint filed by the Senior Manager, Catholic Syrian Cr.MC. No.46/10 2 Bank, Perumbavoor, in this regard is produced as Annexure A. The said complaint was enquired into and several crimes were registered against the petitioner. The petitioner would point out that the transaction involved in all the crimes are identical and therefore, it is only appropriate that they are tried altogether. He moved the JFCM, Perumbavoor, by filing MP No.239/09 in CC No.540/05, praying for joint trial of the cases. Copy of the said petition is produced as Annexure G. The learned Magistrate ordered that CC Nos.541/05, 544/05 and 540/05 can be clubbed together and tried jointly. CC Nos.542/05 and 543/05 were ordered to be tried separately. The said order is challenged by the petitioner in this petition. It is pointed out by him that the Court below has obviously taken note of only S.219 Cr.P.C. and it has not taken note of S.218, which enables an accused to seek joint trial of several cases. 3. There seems to be some substance in the contention raised by the petitioner. The Court has been Cr.MC. No.46/10 3 guided by S.219 Cr.P.C. It is not seen as to why the Court has not adverted to S.218 Cr.P.C. or what prevented the Court from jointly trying the cases, especially when such a request has been made by the accused. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below for considering the matter afresh, after adverting to S.218 Cr.P.C. and also considering the facts of the case. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta Cr.MC. No.46/10 4