IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 163 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.129/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------- PRINCE JOHN, S/O.JOHN, PERIYAPURAM HOUSE, KALANIMATTOM BHAGOM, ELANJI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT/STATE --------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.77 OF 2004) OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION NOW PENDING AS C.C.NO.722 OF 2005 & CRIME NO.63 OF 2004 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, NOW PENDING AS C.C.No.129 OF 2008 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.163 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting his prayer for consolidation of charges and joint trial in two separate prosecutions both under Section 420 I.P.C. The only ground on which the prayer is rejected is that the two cases are of the year 2005 and 2008 respectively. No other specific reasons are shown. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in both cases charges have already been framed against him and there is no semblance of a possibility of protraction if joint trial were to be ordered. The latter case bears the number C.C.No.129/08 only on the ground that the same was re- numbered after it was received in transfer by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha. The short grievance of the petitioner is that his prayer for consolidation of charges and joint trial under Section 218 Cr.P.C has been dismissed on irrelevant grounds. Crl.M.C.No. 163/09 2 3. I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. If charges have been framed already in both cases, the learned Magistrate must definitely consider the prayer made as per the proviso to Section 218 Cr.P.C on merits. That having not been done, I am satisfied that the impugned order can be set aside and the learned Magistrate can be directed to consider the matter afresh under the proviso to Section 218 Cr.P.C. 4. This petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The learned Magistrate shall consider the matter afresh and pass orders on merits. Such further orders shall be passed expeditiously - within a period of ten days from the date on which a copy of this order is placed before the learned Magistrate. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No. 163/09 3 Crl.M.C.No. 163/09 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008