bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 333 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 333 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 333 OF 2007 Madanlal Jain ... Petitioner v/s 1. Libord Securities Ltd. 2. State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Smt. Sunanda Kumbhat for the petitioner. Mr.A.K.Maheshwar i/by D.M.Shah for the Resp.No.1. Smt.A.A.Mane, A.P.P. for the respondent No.2 State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 20TH JUNE, 2008 20TH JUNE, 2008 20TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order dated 5.12.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai allowing the application filed by the accused for transferring the cases filed by the respondent to one Court. 2. It appears that several cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been filed against the accused which were pending before several different Courts. Besides these summary cases, the police had also registered a Crime bearing No.21 of 2002 pursuant 2 to which Case No.138/PW/05 is pending before the 19th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai. The accused, therefore, moved an application for transfer of various cases pending against him arising out of the same transaction to one Court. The Sessions Court allowed the application by observing that the cases should be transferred to one Court. The Sessions Court has considered the aspect of misjoinder and charges and has observed that it would only occur if the cases are tried together, jointly. The Court directed that the cases should be transferred to any one Court but tried separately. It is only if the parties agreed, observed the Sessions Court, common evidence should be recorded in order to save the time and also to avoid repetition. 3. There are no infirmities in the impugned order requiring interference from this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.