1 Criminal Writ Petition No.300/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.300 OF 2011 Jagannath Bapurao Pawar & ors. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioners Shri P.P. More, A.P.P. for respondent ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 29th June, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard both the counsel extensively. 2. The petitioners (accused in Special Case Nos.7/1991, 8/1991 and 9/1991) pending on the file of learned Special Judge, Dhule, have urged to direct the learned Special Judge, Dhule to amalgamate these three cases in the light of Sections 219 and 220 of the Criminal Procedure Code, or in the alternative, direct the learned Judge to hold a joint trial/ single trial of the Special Case Nos.7/1991, 8/1991 and 9/1991 or again in the alternative, to direct the learned trial Judge to commence trial of Special 2 Criminal Writ Petition No.300/2011 Case No.9/1991 and complete the same, thereafter to proceed to take up other two special cases, in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner moved application to the learned Special Judge, below Exh. 182, 183, urging to merge special Case Nos.7/1991, 8/1991 and 9/1991 and charge be framed in Special Case No.9/1991 and proceed according to law. 4. The afore-referred special cases cover the period of alleged misappropriation, illegal gratification of the Government funds for the period from 1.10.1988 to 3.1.1989 (Special Case No.7/1991), 30.12.1988 to 22.5.1989 (Special Case No.8/1991), 8.8.1998 to 8.9.1989 (Special Case No.9/1991). 5. During the course of submissions, learned counsel informs that charge is framed in Special Case No.7/1991 and two witnesses are examined. 6. The learned Special Judge, while rejecting the applications, has recorded that 17 to 18 years have lapsed and then the application is moved. He has also communicated that, in Special Case No.2/1991, identical prayer was made and it was turned down. Even the matter was carried to this Court and it was rejected. However, Shri Suryawanshi is unable to inform 3 Criminal Writ Petition No.300/2011 about any such application either before the Special Judge or it was moved before this Court though it is referred in the order of the learned Judge. 7. The learned counsel informs, on the contrary, it was the State, which had earlier applied the learned Judge for amalgamation of the cases to be tried together and it was rejected. 8. If what the leaned counsel submits that earlier application was made and it has been rejected, I do not see any occasion to renew the same prayer from the accused/ applicants. 9. The learned A.P.P. points that the period involved in all the three offences is quite different, even it is overlapping to some extent and the witnesses are different, events of misappropriation are different. Prima facie I find substance in such submission of A.P.P. as the extract of charge sheet tendered by the petitioners indicate so. Considering above aspects of the matter and additionally, the basic prayer moved and made before learned Special Judge was not within the bracket of Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The parameters for applicability of Section 219 of the Criminal 4 Criminal Writ Petition No.300/2011 Procedure Code, will not rest for three offences in a year for itself, but will also revolve to the nature of offence. As said above, the nature of offences cover different period and witnesses are also different. If the trial is amalgamated, as it is said, it will be camouflage after 18 years it will be prejudicial to the accused as also to the State. Writ Petition lacks merits, dismissed. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) fmp/cwp300.2011