N. RAGHUVULU NAIDU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an accused in C.C. No. 6282 of 2017 filed this petition seeking transfer of the case to the file of the XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and to hold trial together with C.C. No. 20 of 2017.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on source information, a case came to be registered in Crime No. CBI/ACB/CHENNAI in RC MA1 2015 A 0023 for the offence under Sections 7, 12, 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioner, who is a public servant. On completion of investigation, the respondent filed two final reports before two different Courts. One is C.C. No. 6282 of 2017 and another is C.C. No. 20 of 2017. In C.C. No. 6282 of 2017, the petitioner is the single accused, who is facing trial for the offence under Section 420 of IPC before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in which 83 witnesses were examined 177 documents were collected. As regards, C.C. No. 20 of 2017, pending on the file of the XIII Additional Special Judge, CBI Cases, Chennai, the petitioner is facing trial along with three others, who are the family members of late M. Manuneethi Cholan, former Registrar of Companies for the offence under Sections 120(B) of IPC r/w 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in which there are 128 witnesses were examined and 246 documents were collected.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submitted that for fair and impartial trial, the cases which are presently being tried before two different Courts, in the interest of general convenience of parties and witnesses and interest of Justice, both cases are to be tried together in one Court. He would further submitted that both the cases arise out of common FIR and relying upon the principles of Section 223(D) and 269 of Cr.P.C., he made his contention. The witnesses are common in both the cases. If common witnesses are crossexamined in one case, the witnesses would become vulnerable and the prosecution would try to fill up the lacuna in this case.