BRAHMA DUTTA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran and Vijay Kumar Verma, JJ. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA, and Counsel for the complainant.

(2.) THE petition by B. D. Sharma is being treated as the leading petition because learned Counsel for the petitioner has principally raised arguments in this petition. We are disposing of all the connected petitions and Criminal Misc. Application filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. , which was connected by an order passed by a Division Bench dated 11. 10. 2007 by a common order in this writ petition.

(3.) HOWEVER, as vehement arguments were raised on merits, we are also alluding to the same. It was argued that for the same crime for which' initially only case crime No. 221 of 2004 was assigned, subsequently separate crime No. 221 A to 221 M have been assigned and therefore separate charge-sheets in the said crimes, which related to a single cause of action are illegal. In one of the petitions, viz. the petition by R. D. Sharma, the Investigating Officer has submitted a counter affidavit. It has been mentioned in paragraph No. 4 of the counter affidavit that as it was revealed that several offences had taken place at different times with different accused persons involved therein, accordingly, for the sake of convenience of investigation, so that the precise role of the accused in each and every crime could be ascertained hence separate crime numbers had been allotted and permission from the higher officials had even been taken by the previous Investigating Officer in this regard.