Special Judge jurisdiction and joint trial discretion in the 2G scam were upheld for connected offences and case management reasons.

A Special Judge validly appointed for a corruption-related 2G scam case could also try connected Indian Penal Code offences arising from the same transaction, because the appointment and related notification were sustained and extended to linked offences. The challenge to jurisdiction failed. Joinder of trials remained a matter of judicial discretion, not an enforceable right of the accused, and refusal of a joint trial was justified where the main trial was already advanced, many witnesses had been examined, and clubbing would risk delay, duplication and prejudice. The challenge to the refusal of joint trial therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Special Judge had jurisdiction to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code arising out of the 2G scam cases, and whether the administrative order and notification appointing the Special Judge were valid; (ii) Whether the appellants were entitled to a joint trial and whether refusal of joint trial by the Special Judge suffered from any infirmity.

Issue (i): Whether the Special Judge had jurisdiction to try the offences under the Indian Penal Code arising out of the 2G scam cases, and whether the administrative order and notification appointing the Special Judge were valid.

Analysis: The jurisdiction conferred on the Special Judge was upheld because the co-accused in the main 2G scam case were facing prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Special Judge was validly appointed for such cases. Once that appointment and the related notification were sustained, offences under the Indian Penal Code arising from the same scam could also be tried by the Special Judge. The challenge based on the contention that the Special Judge could not try non-PC Act offences was rejected.

Conclusion: The Special Judge had jurisdiction, and the validity of the administrative order and notification was affirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants were entitled to a joint trial and whether refusal of joint trial by the Special Judge suffered from any infirmity.

Analysis: The provisions governing joinder of trials confer discretion on the court and do not create an absolute right in the accused to insist on a joint trial. The Special Judge gave cogent reasons for refusing to club the matters, including the advanced stage of the main trial, the large number of witnesses already examined, and the risk of waste of judicial effort and prejudice. No legal infirmity was shown in that exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The refusal to order a joint trial was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Special Judge's jurisdiction and to the refusal of a joint trial failed, and the appellate proceedings could not be maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: A Special Judge validly appointed for a corruption-related scam case may try connected Indian Penal Code offences arising from the same scam, and joinder of trials remains a matter of judicial discretion rather than an enforceable right of the accused.

---