Joint trial limits under criminal procedure: distinct complaints cannot be consolidated absent same transaction or statutory transfer power.

Sections 218 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permit joint trial only within their stated limits: Section 218 applies where separate offences are before the same Magistrate, and Section 220 applies only when offences arise from the same transaction. Distinct complaints involving different persons allegedly defrauded on separate occasions do not satisfy that test. The inherent power under Section 482 cannot be used to create a transfer mechanism where the Code provides none, and an earlier order that expressly disclaims precedential status cannot be treated as binding law. On that reasoning, transfer and consolidation before one Magistrate were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal cases pending before different Magistrates could be transferred and consolidated for trial before one court by invoking Sections 218 and 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the earlier order directing such consolidation could be treated as a binding precedent.

Analysis: The provision in Section 218 permits joint consideration of distinct offences only when they are before the same Magistrate; it does not authorise one Magistrate to call for and try cases pending before different courts. Section 220 applies where offences arise out of the same transaction so that a joint trial is permissible, but the complaints here related to different persons allegedly defrauded on separate occasions and were therefore distinct offences not forming one series of acts constituting the same transaction. The inherent power under Section 482 cannot be used to create a transfer power where none exists in the Code, and it was not a case of invoking that power to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. An order expressly stating that it should not be treated as a precedent cannot be mechanically followed as if it declared binding law.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in transferring and consolidating the cases before a single Magistrate on the basis of the earlier order. The challenge succeeded, and the impugned transfer order was unsustainable.

---