[Cites 31, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Viraj S/O Suhas Patil vs State Of Maha Thr Director General Of ... on 6 May, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:7108-DB
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.337 OF 2025
1. Viraj s/o Suhas Patil,
Aged about 31 Years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. D-103, Shivangan,
Dahisar CHS Ravalpada,
Dahisar, Mumbai - 400068. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through Director General of Police,
State of Maharashtra,
State Police Headquarter,
Old Council Hall, Shahid Bhagat Singh
Marg, Mumbai - 01.
2. Police Station Officer,
Police Station Nandanwan, Nagpur,
Taluka and District Nagpur.
3. Economic Offences Wing (EOW)
Nagpur City, Police Bhavan Civil Lines,
Nagpur, Taluka and District Nagpur.
4. Police Station Officer,
Police Station Amboli,
Taluka and District Mumbai.
5. Economic Offences Wing (EOW),
Mumbai Unit No.8,
Mumbai,
Talukla and District Mumbai.
6. Police Station Officer,
Police Station Islampur,
Taluka Walva, District Sangli.
7. State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Kaleparal, District Pune City.
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
(2)
8. State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer,
Shahpuri, District Satara.
9. Suraj Madhukar Savarkar,
Age : 30 Years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Takli (Za), Tahsil Seloo,
District - Wardha.
10. Surendra Madhukar Savarkar,
Age : 29 Years,
Occupation : Business,
R/o. Takli (Za), Tahsil Seloo,
District - Wardha.
11. Dr. Nilesh Nareshrao Raut,
Age : 46 Years,
Occupation : Medical Practice,
12. Dr. Priti Nilesh Raut,
Age : 44 Years,
Occupation : Medical Practice,
Nos.11 and 12 R/o. Plot No.25,
C/o. Pravin Chambhare,
Shrinagar Layout, Behind
Daygavhane Hospital, Wardha,
District Wardha.
13. Prasannajit Pashupati Das,
Aged about 26 Years,
R/o. A/6, Ramdev Bagan Golmuri,
Jamshedpur, East Singbhumi
(Jharkhand) - 700064,
Also at R/o. C/o. Presidency
Correctional Home, Alipur,
Kolkata (West Bengal).
14. Shaileshkumar Pande (in custody)
Aged : Major,
Occupation : Chartered Accountant,
R/o. C/o. Presidency Correctional
Home, Alipur, Kolkata (West Bengal). .... RESPONDENTS
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
(3)
-------------------------------------------
Mr. Akshay Naik, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. K. S.
Motwani, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. S. S. Doifode, APP for State.
Ms. Bhavya Dhruv, Advocate for respondent No.9.
Mr. Kaustubh Bhise, Advocate for respondent No.10.
Mr. Shyam Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent Nos.11 and 12.
-------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 27.04.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.05.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT : [Per : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.]
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Present petition is preferred by the petitioner for
direction and to club the proceedings of Special Case
No.814/2024 pending in the Court of Special Court (MPID),
Nagpur which is arising out of Crime No.94/2024 and Special
Case No.573/2025 pending in the Court of Special Court and 20 th
Additional Sessions Judge of City Civil and Sessions Court,
Mumbai, and to club the proceedings arising out of Crime
No.89/2025 registered with Police Station, Kaleparal, District
Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409,
120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections
3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors
(in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (for short 'MPID Act') and
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
First Information Report in connection with Crime No.260/2025
dated 12.06.2025 registered with Islampur Police Station,
District Sangli for the offence punishable under Sections 420,
406, 409, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act and Crime No.252/2025
registered at Shahpuri Police Station, District Satara for the
offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
4. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused in connection
with Crime No.94/2024 registered at Nandanvan Police Station,
Nagpur under Sections 420, 409, 406, 418, 120B read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66D of
the Information Technology Act, and under Section 3 of the MPID
Act, bearing Special Case No.814/2024 along with the other
co-accused. Another Crime No.970/2024 is also registered
against the present petitioner at Amboli Police Station, Mumbai
under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the MPID Act.
5. During pendency of these two crimes, another three
crimes are registered against the present petitioner vide Crime
No.89/2025 at Kaleparal Police Station, Pune for the offence
punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 120B read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
of the MPID Act, Crime No.260/2025 at Islampur Police Station,
District Sangli under Sections 420, 409, 406, 120B read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4
of MPID Act, whereas Crime No.252/2025 was registered at
Shahpuri Police Station, District Satara under Section 420 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. As per the allegations levelled against the petitioner is
that during 24.06.2022 to 24.02.2024 the petitioner induced the
various investors to invest the amount in the business by
creating or offering the platform of education in respect of Forex
trading, Crypto trading etc.
7. The crime was registered at Nagpur Police Station on
the basis of a report lodged by Vikram Laxman Bajaj on an
allegation that he came to know about IX Global Company
through co-accused Suraj Sawarkar and said company involves
in the business of creating or offering the platform of education
in respect of Forex trading, Crypto trading etc. He has
subscribed the services of IX Global by paying membership fees.
On or about 24.06.2022, the complainant and his other family
members invested the huge amount with the present petitioner.
The said amount was transferred in the account of PR Traders,
Canara Bank, Branch Kolkata. Despite it was assured that he
would earn profit to the extent of 8 % of his total investment,
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
initially, some amount was credited in the account of his wife,
but subsequently, he has not received any substantial profit and
therefore, he approached to the Police Station and lodged a
report.
8. As per the contention of the petitioner, initially, Crime
No.290/2022 was registered with Hare Street Police Station,
Kolkata for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code against five
accused namely Aman Thakur(TM Traders), Kaushal Kumar Shah
(K.K. Traders), Rakesh Kumar Singh (MR Traders), Pankaj
Kumar Tiwari (PK Traders) and Rahul Kumar Akela (RK Trading).
The said offence was registered at the instance of one Rahul,
Ranjan, Regional Manager, Canara Bank, Kolkata. The sum and
substance in the said FIR was the accused persons named in the
complaint entered into criminal conspiracy and pursuance to that
they opened fictitious accounts vide account No.120001761068
and account No.120001761042 with Canara Bank by forged
documents and used those accounts to make fictitious
transactions involving Rs.77 Crores for the purpose of cheating.
9. It was further alleged that in Crime No.290/2022 that
M/s TM Traders and KK Traders approached the Canara bank,
Narendrapur Banch for opening of current accounts in their
names and they have submitted account opening forms along
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
with KYC documents. There were huge debit entries noticed
within the span of less than a month, and therefore, bank figured
out that no such parties are carrying out their business at their
given address, which resulted into lodging of the said FIR.
During the course of investigation, it revealed that investors
have transferred money to the accounts in question, therefore,
the statements of the said investors were recorded and the
investigating agency learned about Forex trading as well as IX
Global trading. During investigation, from the statement of one
Viraj Suhas Patil name of the petitioner was transpired, and
thereafter, the petitioner came to arrested and subsequently, the
various FIR's as mentioned above were registered against the
petitioner and the other co-accused on the basis of the reports
lodged by different investors. It is contended by the petitioner
that most of the accused who arrayed as an accused in crime
No.94/2024 at Nagpur are already made accused in Crime
No.290/2022 and 297/2022. Once the FIR is already registered
at Kolkata vide Crime No.290/2022, the subsequent FIRs for
being part of same transaction are not permissible in law. It is
further submitted that the investigation in two Crimes 94/2024
and 970/2024 is already completed and the charge sheet is
already filed. The other three crimes i.e. Crime No.89/2025,
260/2025 and 252/2025 respectively at Kaleparal Police Station,
Pune, Islampur Police Station Sangli and Shahpuri Police Station,
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
District Satara are under investigation. The nature of allegation
made in all the FIRs are identical as those are related to the
financial fraud attributed to the IX Global, therefore, all the FIRs
are required to be clubbed together as all the FIRs arises from
the same event and connected chain of events and hence, this
petition.
10. The said petition is strongly opposed by the
respondent No.3 on the ground that the investors are
approaching to the police Authorities for registering the offence
against the petitioner, and therefore, the answering respondent
have registered the complaint in view of the judgment of the
Apex Court in Lalita Kumari's case. The stand taken by the
petitioner that it would consume the considerable time and it
would be difficult to ascertain as to when all these trials would
concluded and it will be again impracticable to conduct trial at a
different place requires no consideration, as there are other
accused in different cases along with the petitioner. Therefore,
the petition deserves to be dismissed. Similar stand is taken by
the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.
11. Heard learned Senior counsel Mr. Naik for the
petitioner, who submitted that the petitioner is incarcerated in
various crimes, the trial wherein the charge sheet is already filed
has not been commenced. If the trials are conducted in different
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
Courts of MPID, it would consume a considerable time and it
would be difficult to ascertain as to when all these trials would be
concluded. It would be inconvenient for the witnesses also to
visit at various Courts, and therefore, it would be convenient for
the Court to appreciate the evidence and the lengthy procedure
would be avoided. The evidence can be recorded conjointly and
this would bring certainty to the entire process which is most
effective way of dealing with the grievance of the various
investors.
12. On the contrary, learned APP strongly opposed the
said contention and submitted that the clubbing of the trials
cannot be sought by way of right and the provisions contained in
the Code of Criminal Procedure do not confer any such right on
the accused persons. He submitted that there are multiple FIRs
and large number of witnesses are to be examined, and
therefore, clubbing of the trials would not be convenient way to
deal with these trials, and therefore, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
13. Before we advert to the issue, it is necessary to go
through the various provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Code of Criminal Procedure gives the detail mechanism
for conduct of trials and inquiries. Chapter XIII of the Code deals
with the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in inquiries and trials.
Section 177 states that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
into and tried by a Court in whose jurisdiction it was committed.
Chapter XVI deals with the charges and joinder of parties.
Section 218 to Section 223 deals with various circumstances and
how the charge can be framed in these circumstances. Section
218 states that for every distinct offence, of which any person is
accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge
shall be tried separately. Sub-section (2) of Section 218
contends that nothing in sub-section (1) shall affect the
operation and provisions of sections 219, 220, 221 and 223.
14. Section 219 of the Code is an exception and deals with
the circumstance when a person is accused of more offences
than one of the same kind committed with the space of twelve
months from the first to the last of such offences. It is in respect
of the same person or not and in such case, it may tried to one
trial, for any number of them or not is also dealt by this Section.
Section 220 deals with the exception to Section 218 when one
trial is permitted, if in one series of acts so connected together
as to form the same transaction, where more than one offence
are committed by the same person, then he may be charged
with, and tried in one trial, for every such offence. Section 223
contemplates a situation when two or more persons may be
charged and tried together jointly. Section 223 permits joint
charge and joint trial in case of persons accused of the same
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
offence committed in the course of the same transaction or
persons accused of different offences committed in the course of
the same transaction. Section 184 which contains a provision
determining the place of trial for offences triable together which
reads as under:
184. Place of trial for offences triable together
Where-
(a) the offences committed by any person are such that
he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each
such offence by virtue of the provisions of section 219,
section 220 or section 221, or
(b) the offence or offences committed by several
persons are such that they may be charged with and
tried together by virtue of the provisions of section
223, the offences may be inquired into or tried by any
Court competent to inquire into or try any of the
offences.
15. Thus, from this provisions, it reveals that separate trial
is a rule, however, the contingencies contained in Section 219,
220, 221 and 223 are exceptions to this Rule. One of the
exceptions is when the series of acts are so connected together
as to form the same transaction and more offences than one are
committed by the same person, he may be tried at one trial in
terms of Section 220.
16. The issue as to whether the offences are committed in
the course of same transaction is dealt by the Hon'ble Apex
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
Court in State of A P Vs. Cheemalapti Ganeswara Rao &
Anr. reported in (1964) 3 SCR 297, wherein while interpreting
the term "same transaction" the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as
under:
"27....Whether a transaction can be regarded as the same
would necessarily depend upon the particular facts of each
case and it seems to be a difficult task to undertake a
definition of that which the Legislature has deliberately left
undefined. We have not come across a single decision of any
Court which the Legislature has embarked upon the difficult
task of defining the expression. But it is generally thought
that where there is proximity of time or place or unity of
purpose and design or continuity of action in respect of a
series of acts, it may be possible to infer that they form part
of the same transaction. It is, however, not necessary that
every one of these elements should co-exist for a transaction
to be regarded as the same."
17. It is further held that:
"30.....Where, however, several offences are alleged to have
been committed by several accused persons it may be more
reasonable to follow the normal rule of separate trials. But
here, again, if those offences are alleged not be wholly
unconnected but as forming part of the same transaction
the only consideration that will justify separate trials would
be the embarrassment or difficulty caused to the accused
persons in defending themselves."
18. This Court in Writ Petition No.2784/2018 in
Pramod Bhaichand Raisoni and ors vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Anr decided on 02.05.2019 dealt with the
above circumstances and by referring the judgment of Mohan
Baitha and Ors Vs. State of Bihar and Ors reported in AIR
2001 SC 1490 wherein it was observed as follows:
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
"It may be noticed that under Section 220 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, offences more than one committed by
the same persons could be tried at one trial, if they can be
held to be in one series of acts, so as to form the same
transaction. The expression "same transaction" from its
very nature is incapable of an exact definition. It is not
intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical
sense. Common sense and the ordinary use of language
must decide whether on the facts of a particular case, it
can be held to be in one transaction. It is not possible to
enunciate any comprehensive formula of universal
application for the purpose of determining whether two or
more acts constitute the same transaction. But the
circumstances of a given case indicating proximity of time,
unity or proximity of place, continuity of action and
community of purpose or design are the factors for deciding
whether certain acts form parts of the same transaction or
not. Therefore a series of acts whether are so connected
together as to form the same transaction is purely a
question of fact to be decided on the aforesaid criteria."
19. In view of the above said observations of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, it can be said that if there is any proximity of time or
place or unity or purpose and design or continuity of action in
respect of acts, it can be said that the acts form parts of the
same transaction. Thus, the connection between series of acts is
an essential ingredient for those acts to constitute the same
transaction.
20. The similar issue was before the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Bhagwan Dass Jagdish Chander Vs. Delhi Aministration
reported in 1975(1) SCC 866, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court
observed "We do not propose to attempt, in this case, the task of
defining exhaustively what constitutes the same transaction
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
within the meaning of Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code
corresponding to Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It
is practically impossible as well as undesirable to attempt such a
definition of a concept which has to be necessarily elastic."
21. It is further observed that:
"The connection between a series of acts seems to us to be an
essential ingredient for those acts to constitute the same
transaction and, therefore, the mere absence of the words 'so
connected together as to form in clause (a), (c) and (d) of
Section 239 would make little difference. Now, a transaction
may consist of an isolated act or may consist of a series of acts.
The series of acts which constitute a transaction must of
necessity be connected with one another and if some of them
stand out independently, they would not form part of the same
transaction but would constitute a different transaction or
transactions.
Therefore, even if the expression 'same transaction'
alone had been used in Section 235(1) it would have meant a
transaction consisting either of a single act or of a series of
connected acts. The expression 'same transaction' occurring in
clauses (a), (c) and (d) of Section 239 as well as that occurring
in Section 235(1) ought to be given the meaning according to
the normal rule of construction of statutes".
22. Applying the above said principle, the Division Bench
of this Court in case of Adnan Bilal Mulla Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2006 (1) Mh.L.J.572 has permitted a
joint trial in respect of the bomb blast which occurred at Mumbai.
This aspect was also considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case Amanat Ali Vs. State of Karnataka (2023) 14 SCC 801,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in para No.8 "Hence,
following the principles laid down in Amish Devgan Vs. Union
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
of India (2021) 1 SCC 1, we deem it appropriate to exercise
power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to
accede to the relief claimed to the extent of consolidation of the
FIRs registered in the State of Madhya Pradesh for being tried
together as one trial as far as possible, as we are of the opinion
that multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public
interest and State also"
23. Similarly, in the case of Radhey Shyam vs State of
Haryana and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935,
wherein also the relief of clubbing of all the FIRs in connection
with the network marketing scheme was permitted by the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
24. In the case of Abhishek Singh Chauhan Vs. Union
of India and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1936,
wherein also the said clubbing of various FIRs registered in
various State was permitted by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
25. In the case of Satinder Singh Bhasin vs. State of
Uttr Pradesh and another reported in (2023) 14 SCC 805, it
is observed in para No.25 that:
"Suffice it to note that the principal FIR filed in first point of
time was registered by the Kasna Police Station in Greater
Noida being FIR No.353/2015 dated 09.06.2015. More or less,
similar allegations are made in the subsequently filed FIRs by
different buyers of the units in the commercial building
concerned. As many as 41 FIRs have been filed across the
State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 FIRs in the Government of NCT of
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
Delhi. We hasten to add that Government of NCT of Delhi has
no objection to club these FIRs along with the principal FIR."
"26. Accordingly, following the principle enunciated by
this Court in Amish Devgan V. Union of India (supra) so also
the peculiar facts of the present case, we, in exercise of power
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, accede to the
relief claimed in terms of the prayer clause (b) of consolidation
of all FIRs, including registered in New Delhi with FIR
No.353/2015 as the principal FIR and for being proceeded with
in accordance with law, as we are of the opinion that
multiplicity of the proceedings will not be in the larger public
interest as well."
26. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Public
Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India reported in 2011(1)
SCC 560, wherein the offence was registered as CBI alleged the
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and criminal
conspiracy in respect of grant of Unified Access Service Licenses
in the year 2008 against various Government officials, persons
and companies. They were charged with abusing the official to a
few selected companies at a nominal rate by rejecting the
applications of others without any valid reason thereby causing
wrongful loss to the Government of India and a corresponding
wrongful loss to the various private persons and companies
which was more than Rs.22,000 Crores. While dealing with the
said contention the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring the judgment
of Essar Teleholdings Ltd Vs. CBI observed that :
"20. Read in the backdrop of Sections 220 and 223, it is clear
that a discretion is vested with the Court to order a joint trial.
In fact, in Chandra Bhal V. State of U.P., (1971) 3 SCC
983, this Court stated: "Turning to the provisions of the
Code, Section 233 embodies the general mandatory rule
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
providing for a separate charge for every distinct offence and
for separate trial for every such charge. The broad object
underlying the general rule seems to be to give to the
accused a notice of the precise accusation and to save him
from being embarrassed in his defence by the confusion which
is likely to result from lumping together in a single charge
distinct offences and from combining several charges at one
trial. There are, however, exceptions to this general rule and
they are found in Sections 234, 235, 236 and 239. These
exceptions embrace cases in which one trial for more than
one offence is not considered likely to embarrass or prejudice
the accused in his defence. The matter of joinder of charges
is, however, in the general discretion of the court and the
principle consideration controlling the judicial exercise of this
discretion should be to avoid embarrassment to the defence
by joinder of charges. On the appellant's argument the only
provision requiring consideration is Section 235(1) which lays
down that if in one series of acts so connected together as to
form the same transaction more offences than one are
committed by the same person then he may be charged with
and tried at one trial for every such offence. This exception
like the other exceptions merely permits a joint trial of more
offences than one. It neither renders a joint trial imperative
nor does it bar or prohibit separate trials. Sub-section (2) of
Section 403 of the Code also provides that a person acquitted
or convicted of any offence may be afterwards tried for any
distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been
made against him on the former trial under Section 235(1).
No legal objection to the appellant's separate trial is
sustainable and his counsel has advisedly not seriously
pressed any before us."
"21. The other contention of learned senior counsel for the
petitioners before us has already been answered by this Court
by upholding both the administrative order dated 15.3.2011
and the NCT notification dated 28.3.2011. This Court having
held that the administrative order dated 15.3.2011 of the
High court was valid, it is clear that even a Penal Code
offence by itself - that is, such offence which is not to be tried
with a Prevention of Corruption Act offence - would be within
the Special Judge's jurisdiction inasmuch as the
administrative order of the High Court gives power to the
Special Court to decide all offences pertaining to the 2G
Scam. In fact, once this order is upheld, the learned senior
advocate's argument based on Section 4(3) of the Prevention
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
of Corruption Act pales into insignificance. This is for the
reason that independent of Section 4(3) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and of the notification dated 28.3.2011, the
Special Judge has been vested with the jurisdiction to
undertake the trial of all cases in relation to all matters
pertaining to the 2G Scam exclusively, which would include
Penal Code offences by themselves, so long as they pertain to
the 2G Scam. Shri Salve cited State (through CBI, New Delhi)
v. Jitender Kumar Singh, (2014) 11 SCC 724, and paragraph
38 in particular to submit that a Special Judge appointed to
try Prevention of Corruption Act cases, cannot try non
Prevention of Corruption Act cases unless there is a causal
link between such cases and the Prevention of Corruption Act
cases, in which case they must be tried together. As has been
held by us, once the challenge to the administrative order
dated 15.3.2011, is specifically rejected, the offences arising
out of the second supplementary chargesheet, being offences
under the Penal Code relatable to the 2G scam, can be tried
separately only by the Special Judge."
27. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Jharkhand through SP, CBI Vs. Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad
Yadav reported in 2017 (8) SCC 1 while dealing with the power
conferred under Section 220 and 223 of the Criminal Procedure
Code interpreted the said provisions and observed as follows:
"29. It is apparent from section 212 read with section 219 that
there have to be separate trials for different years covering the
period of more than one year. Same kind of offence is a
different thing than the "same offence" for the purpose of
sections 219, 220 or 300. The scheme of law is clear that
separate charges for distinct offences must be framed
separately and they cannot be clubbed together for more than
one year.
30. This Court in Natwar Lal Sakar Lal Mody v. The State of
Bombay 26 (1984) DLT 64 considered the question of joint
trial of persons and offences for conspiracy as per provisions
contained in section 239(d) of the old Cr.P.C. This Court has
laid down that separate trial is the rule and joint trial is an
exception. Joint trial would be an irregular exercise of discretion
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
if a court allows innumerable offences spread over a long period
of time and committed by a large number of persons to be
under the protecting wings of an all-embracing conspiracy, and
if each or some of the offences can be separately tried, it would
be appropriate and lawful. Joint trial prolongs the trial and
causes waste of judicial time and complicates the matter which
might otherwise be simple, and it would confuse the accused
and cause prejudice to them. Court should not be overzealous to
provide a cover of conspiracy for a number of offences unless it
is satisfied that the persons who committed separate offences
were parties to the conspiracy and committed the separate acts
pursuant to conspiracy. This Court has laid down thus :
"11. This discussion leads us to the following legal
position. Separate trial is the rule and joint trial is an
exception. While Section 239 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure allows a joint trial of person and offences within
defined limits, it is within the discretion of the Court to
permit such a joint trial or not, having regard to the
circumstances of each case. It would certainly be an
irregular exercise of discretion if a Court allows an
innumerable number of offences spread over a long period
of time and committed by a large number of persons
under the protecting wing of all-embracing conspiracy, if
each or some of the offences can legitimately and properly
form the subject-matter of a separate trial; such a joint
trial would undoubtedly prolong the trial and would be a
cause of unnecessary waste of judicial time. It would
complicate matters which might otherwise be simple; it
would confuse accused and cause prejudice to them, for
more often than not accused who have taken part in one
of the minor offences might have not only to undergo the
long strain of protracted trial, but there might also be the
likelihood of the impact of the evidence adduced in respect
of other accused on the evidence adduced against him
working to his detriment. Nor can it be said that such an
omnibus charge or charges would always be in favour of
the prosecution for the confusion introduced in the charges
and consequently in the evidence may ultimately benefit
some of the accused, as a clear case against one or other
of the accused may be complicated or confused by the
attempt to put it in a proper place in a larger setting. A
Court should not be overzealous to provide a cover of
conspiracy for a number of offences unless it is clearly
satisfied on the material placed before it that there is
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
evidence to prove prima facie that the persons who
committed separate offences were parties to the
conspiracy and they committed the separate acts
attributed to them pursuant to the object of the said
conspiracy."
(Emphasis supplied)
28. In the present case, the allegations levelled against
the present petitioner and other co-accused relate to similar
transactions of the investors obtaining the investments under the
pretext of involvement in the business of creating or offering the
platform of education in respect of Forex trading, Crypto trading
etc. It was alleged that the amounts were invested by the
various investors on the inducement for the services of IX Global
by paying membership fees and the investors have invested the
huge amount as they were induced to invest on a promise of
payment of 8% profit on total investment. In each FIR the
nature of transaction is identical. The provisions of MPID having
been invoked against all the accused persons and the charge
sheet is already filed in two crimes i.e. Crime No.94/2024 which
was registered at Nandanvan Police Station, Nagpur and Crime
No. 970/2024 registered at Amboli Police Station, Mumbai.
Considering the nature of the allegation is similar, therefore, it
would be in the interest of justice to assign all the matters to one
Court of MPID which would also be in the interest of the
prosecution, prosecuting agency and would also ensure fair and
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
speedy trial to the present petitioners who are arraigned as
accused.
29. Learned counsel for the accused Nos.9,10,11,12
though raised the minor objection however, subsequently, they
have extended their consent to allow the prayer of the petitioner.
We do not find that there is any prejudice caused to the
prosecution by clubbing of trials. Trial of two cases pending
before two different MPID Courts alongwith three other offences
registered at Kaleparal Police Station, Pune, Islampur Police
Station, District Sangli and Shahpuri Police Station, District
Satara under the provisions of IPC and MPID is a time consuming
process and if the trials are clubbed together, number of
witnesses cited can also be reduced to the minimum and the
relevant evidence would be the basis of any trial for determining
the guilt of any accused.
30. The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors
Act is a special enactment in the interests of depositors and to
deal with such financial establishments in the State, who are
grabbing money received as deposits from the public. The said
legislation intends to cure the grievances of depositors and the
fraudulent default of the financial establishments and the
accused in such types of offences which can be termed as a
unique class of white collared and organised crime. The
wp.337.2025.Judgment.odt
petitioner and the other co-accused allegedly obtained the
deposits on the promise of giving handsome returns. The
procedure contemplated under the special enactment intent to
prevent the loss of the depositors and protect the interest of the
depositors. There is no other way available to the said
unsecured depositors in absence of the procedure prescribed in
the enactment. The State being the custodian of the welfare of
the subjects cannot be a silent spectator, it is the duty of the
State to assist to render justice to such depositors.
31. We, therefore, deem it expedient to exercise our
powers conferred on us by virtue of Section 407 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to transfer the two criminal cases against the
petitioner and other co-accused pending in different Special MPID
Courts in the State to be transferred to the learned 20 th of
Additional Sessions Judge of City Civil and Sessions Court,
Mumbai. On such transfer, the learned Special Court i.e. 20 th of
Additional Sessions Judge of City Civil and Sessions Court,
Mumbai, after receiving the charge sheet in other three crimes
which are registered at Kaleparal Police Station District Pune,
Islampur Police Station, District Sangli and Shahpuri Police
Station District Satara, conduct the trials.
Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i)
Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate (NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J)
Sarkate.
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/05/2026 14:43:08
