R VASUDEVAN Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred against the order dated 25.02.2012, of the learned Special Judge, CBI whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 219 and 220 CrPC for a joint trial of FIR no. RC No. 1(A)/ 2010/ ACU-IX under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act") and FIR no. RC No. CBI/ ACU IX/ N.D. 3(A)/ 2009 under Section 7, 8, 12, r/w 13(2) PC Act & 13(1)(d) of PC Act r/w Section 120-B IPC registered with Police Station CBI/ ACU-IX/ N.D, New Delhi, was dismissed for the reason that both the offences are distinct and cannot be tried jointly.

(2.) THE FIR no. RC No. CBI/ ACU IX/ N.D. 3(A)/ 2009 under Section 7, 8, 12, r/w 13(2) PC Act & 13(1)(d) of PC Act r/w Section 120-B IPC was registered on the allegation that the petitioner had demanded and agreed to accept illegal gratification of Rs. 7 lacs, while functioning in the capacity of Member, Company Law Board. On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, searches were conducted in the residential premises of the petitioner at New Delhi and Chennai during 27.11.2009 to 1.12.2009 which led to the discovery of huge movable and immovable properties belonging to the petitioner and his wife. THEreafter, another FIR no. RC No. 1(A)/ 2010/ ACU-IX under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) PC Act, was registered against the petitioner alleging possession of assets by the petitioner, disproportionate to his known sources of income. Chargesheets were filed in both the cases separately. THE petitioner filed an application under Section 219 & 220 CrPC before the learned Special Judge, CBI praying for a joint trial of both the cases. THE said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.02.2012. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that both the offences were intrinsically connected as taking of illegal gratification results in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income, and hence necessarily need to be tried together. It was further submitted that right under Section 31 Cr.P.C. and Section 71 IPC would be prejudiced if the petitioner was not tried together for both the offences.