Joint trial and evidence sequencing not required where transferred proceedings involve different offences and procedures

A transfer direction requiring two matters to be tried by the same court did not, by itself, require a joint trial or common recording of evidence. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a police case under Section 420 of the IPC involve different ingredients and procedures, and the earlier order could not be read as compelling sequencing of evidence in one case before the other. Section 210 of the CrPC was not shown to mandate the relief sought on these facts, so the rejection of the application was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order rejecting the request to sequence the evidence in the two cases and to treat them as one joint trial was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The transfer direction required both matters to be tried by the same court to avoid conflicting decisions, but it did not direct a joint trial or common recording of evidence. The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the police case under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code involve different ingredients and different procedures. The earlier order could not be read as mandating that the complainant must first complete evidence in one case before proceeding in the other. Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not shown to require the relief sought in the petition on these facts.

Conclusion: The rejection of the application was upheld and the petition failed.

---