Dalveer Bhandari ( 1 ) THIS petition under lection 482 of the Cr. P. C. hasbeen filed for cluting me charges framed in the cases F. I. R. 35/88 and 37/88pending in the Court of Mr. V. S. Aggarwal, A. S. J. , Delhi. Brief facts necessary todispose of thisi application are recaptulated as under: ( 2 ) SUB Inspector Prithvipal Singh of Police Station, Chandni Mahal receiveda secret information that a person narned Bhajan Singh was distributing Herointhrough his agents. The information was passed on to the concerned S. H. O. byprithvipal Singh, Sub Inspesctor. A raiding party was formed joining policeofficials and two persons from the public. The police vehicles were left at policepost Turkman Gate and the raiding party was Left to Chowk Ghaday Wailan neardda Park. At about 1:15 p. m. the said Sub Jn. -. pectorand Head Constable Ramdiya apprehended the petitioner who was allegedly carrying a green colouredattachi case was going on foot towards bazar Chitli Kabar. From that attachi case10 packets of polythene bags wrapped in a white towel containing Heroin wererecovered. ( 3 ) THE police arrested the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner made adisclosure statement to the effect that he had kept 2 Kgs. of Heroin out of totalquantity of 12 Kgs. in his house, which was given to him by co-accused Pinkiguizar at 9:30a. m. on 15. 3. 1988 and he further mentioned in his statement thathe could get that packet recovered from his house. The petitioner opened the lockof his house with the keys which he allegedly took from underneath a flower-potin front of his house and then from a store inside the bed-room of the house heallegedly produced a packet of polythene paper which contained the 2 Kgs. ofheroin. S. H. O. S. K. Ahuja of Police Station Rajinder Nagar also reached therealongwith his police staff. A separate case was registered against the petitioner forthis alleged recovery at Police Station Rajinder Nagar vide F. I. R. 37/88 and-separate challan was filed at Police Station, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi. ( 4 ) MR. Naseem, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted thatboth these F. I. Rs relate to the same transaction. The police instead of filing onecomposite F. I. R. had filed two separate F. I. Rs. Consequently, two separatesessions trials have been initiated against the Petitioner for one offence. ( 4 ) MR. Naseem, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted thatboth these F. I. Rs relate to the same transaction. The police instead of filing onecomposite F. I. R. had filed two separate F. I. Rs. Consequently, two separatesessions trials have been initiated against the Petitioner for one offence. ( 5 ) THE petitioner moved the Additional Sessions Judge for clubbing of twocauses and prayed for one composite trial for committing one offence. Though thelearned Sessions Judge ordered that both the cases would be tried by one Court butthe main grievance of the petitioner has not been remedied as to why thepetitioner be compelled to face and he is facing two separate criminal trials forcommitting one offence. The clubbing of both the cases has been left to thediscretion of the learned Trial Court. ( 6 ) ON 29/01/1994, Mr. V. S. Aggarwal, learned Additional Sessionsjudge framed a separate charge under Section 21 of NDPS Act, in the case F. I. R. 35/88. ( 7 ) IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was arguedby him before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that though the recoverieswere separate but it related to one transaction, therefore, only one charge oughtto have been framed according to the provisions of Section 220 of the Cr. P. C. Section 220 reads as under:- 220. Trial for more than one offence.- (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the sametransaction, more offences than one are committed by the sameperson, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every suchoffence. (2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breachof trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided insub-section (2) of Section 212 or in Sub-section (1) of Section 219, isaccused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing thecommission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences offalsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trialfor, every such offence. (3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence tailing within two or moreseparate definitions of any law in force for the time being by whichoffences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may becharged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences. (3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence tailing within two or moreseparate definitions of any law in force for the time being by whichoffences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may becharged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences. (4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself orthemselves constitute when combined a different offence, the personaccused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for theoffence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offenceconstituted by any one, or more, of such acts. (5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect Section 71 of the Indianpandnal Code (45 of 1860) ( 8 ) ON the basis of the interpretation of Section 220 of the Cr. P. C. , learnedcounsel submitted that in the instant case there is only one offence, i. e. , unlawfulpossession of Heroin by the petitioner and according to the legislative intentionof Section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Code for one offence there should be one trial, to avoidmultiplicity of the proceedings and harassment to the accused. Learned Counselsubmitted that recovery of the second packet of Heroin from Rajinder Nagar waspart of the same transaction as the total quantity of Heroin was given to thepetitioner and a part of the same transaction was to be handed over to somebody. ( 9 ) MR. Naseem, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed relianceon Dinkarray Raghnath v. The State, AIR 1963 Gukarat 15, Relevant portion isas under:- "under Section 222 (2) several defalcation made at different times, providedthey are made within the course of one year, can be joined together as oneoffence of criminal breach of trust; and such a charge can be joined withanother chargeorchargesundersection477-A Penal Code even though theremay be a number of false entries made to cover several acts of defalcations,provided the case falls under Section235 (l ). If false entries are made for thepurpose of covering a defalcation their plurality would not preclude themfrom being joined in one charge. Acharge under Section 477-A is one offalsification of accounts and not for making false entries. False entries madefor screening an offence of criminal breach of trust may, therefore, constituteone offence. " ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel has also placed reliance on Division Bench judgmentof this Court in Jai Narain and Others v. State DLT 1969 VOL. Acharge under Section 477-A is one offalsification of accounts and not for making false entries. False entries madefor screening an offence of criminal breach of trust may, therefore, constituteone offence. " ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel has also placed reliance on Division Bench judgmentof this Court in Jai Narain and Others v. State DLT 1969 VOL. 5, Page 648. In thisjudgment the Court has defined same transaction, the Court has lard down as under: - "the words same transaction connote that the acts are so related to one another in point of purpose, or as cause and effect, or as principal andanciliary so that they, constitute one transaction or a continuous action. Continuity of action of action contemplated is not in the sense that one actfollows the other without any connection but in the sense of intimateconnection between the different acts. There must be a commnity ofpurpose and a concert. The accused persons even committing offences ofthe same kind but separately may not regarded as having committed thosein the course of the same transaction. " ( 11 ) MR. Jolly, learned Counsel appearing for the State submitted that therewere two separate transactions and the petitioner must face two trials. ( 12 ) THE short question of law which arises for the consideration of the Courtis whether in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner bedirected to face one trial or two trials. ( 13 ) WHEN the law declared in various judgments is applied to the facts andcircumstances of this case, the conclusion becomes irresistible. The secondrecovery of Heroin from Rajinder Nagar was part of the same transaction. Thesecond recovery was effective on the basis of the disclosure statement of theaccused, therefore, in the facts and circumstanceg of this case and in the interestof justice, I direct that both the charges be clubbed together and consequently thepetitioner is directed to face a single composite trial before the Court of learnedadditional Sessions Judge. ( 14 ) THE petition is allowed in terms of the order indicated above. Thepetitioner is directed to appear before the concerned Trial Court on 2 6/09/1994 for further directions. The petition is disposed of.