1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICAION NO. 621/2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.436/2009 State of Maharashtra through C.B.I. Applicant Vs. Tapan Kumar Chakraborty Respondent Mr.J.C.Satpute i/b Mr.G.N.Srinivasan for applicant Mr.A.S.Shitole,APP for State Mr.N.D.George for Res.1 CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J. DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C. . This Revision Application is preferred against the order dated 23/7/2008 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. C.B.I. has registered two distinct offences against one accused , under section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act,1988 i.e.misconduct and under section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) i.e. amassing disproportionate property to the income of the Public Servant. The C.B.I.has preferred the application before the Special Judge requesting that the documents and property which were seized under one case i.e. R.C.- BA-1/2006/A 0038 to the other case which is registered at 2 R.C.BA-1/2006 /A0042 of C.B.I.A.C.B.. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for C.B.I.that though these two offences are registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act the C.B.I.has found that these two offences are distinct and against different accused persons where accused no.1 is common and C.B.I.has considered different period for the commission of these two offences. 2] The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the order passed by the learned Judge is correct. Reliance is placed by him on the ratio T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in A.I.R. 2001 Supreme Court ,2637. 3] In the case of T.T.Antony the issue of second FIR in respect of same cognizable offence is discussed and also the admissibility of such FIR whether under section 154 of section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code is discussed. The facts in the case of T.T.Antony are totally different from the issue and facts involved in the present case. If the two distinct offences are registered by C.B.I.against the different accused for different period of time then prayer for transfer and preserve set of the documents and the property ought 3 to have been allowed. 4] C.B.I.to keep the ditto record of all the documents in one case and the original documents in the other case. The order passed by the learned Special Judge is erroneous and hence set aside. 5] Amendment as sought is granted in Criminal Application no.436/2009. 6] Revision Application and Criminal Application are disposed of accordingly. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)