Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This petition has been preferred under Section 482. Cr PC. for quashing the order dated. 13.5.1997 passed by the Special Judge. CBI. Dhanbad in R.C. No. 12/82. whereby the prayer made by the petitioner to amalgamate R.C. Case No. 12/82 with R.C. Case No. 13 of 1982 has been rejected. 2. Both the above mentioned cases were registered on two First Information Reports lodged by the Opposite Party No 2. against the petitioner alongwith other accused persons. The allegation against the petitioner and other accused persons in both the cases is that while serving in the BCCL, they have entered into a connivance with the private contractor and bills were forged for making payment to the private contractors causing financial lose to the BCCL and definitely wrongful gain in favour of the accused persons. Both the cases were registered under Section 120B/420/467/471, IPC read with Sections 5 (i) (d) and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. R.C. Case No. 12/82 relating to bills of Coal Proving 56 fake bills while in R.C. Case No. 13/82, the allegation is in respect of 97 fake bills. In the first case, 115 documents were related to the bills while in second case, 197 documents related to the 97 fake bills. 3. It was the contention of the petitioner that in both the case; nature of allegations are the same, witnesses are, also the same and the modus operandi of the, accused persons alleged were also the same and hence both cases should be amalgamated and then proceeded. If two cases are proceeded separately then it will cause harassment not Only to the accused persons but also to the prosecution witnesses to come again and again for the same set of allegation. 4. Prayer made from the side of the petitioner had been vehemently objected to by the Senior P.P. of CBI, before the Special Judge at Dhanbad and it was contended that although the nature of allegations are almost same but the parties are different, documents were different and if on it being amalgamated then it will cause such difficulties in bringing all the materials before the court for ends of justice. The nature of allegations might be the same but modus operandi might not be the same as the documents were different in relation to the different/separate allegations brought in two cases. 5. The nature of allegations might be the same but modus operandi might not be the same as the documents were different in relation to the different/separate allegations brought in two cases. 5. The learned Special Judge held after hearing the parties and on construing the materials on record that the circumstances are such that this would cause prejudice to the specific prosecution case, just position of two different things in one yoke would cause further contradictory things be emerged and it will cause prejudice to the accused persons also. 6. Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that when same nature of allegations are there within a period of 12 months, law demands that the cases should be amalgamated and then proceeded with against the accused persons. If amalgamation is not where then there would be difficulty not only for the prosecution witnesses when they are to come at different stages atdifferent times and also would cause prejudicial to the accused persons. It has further been stated that if the charges are being amalgamated in both the cases then the Courts lime would also be saved. 7. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, appearing on behalf of the CBI, submitted that law does not permit to amalgamate such cases and the learned court below found it proper that the cases to proceed separately. 8. In support of the contention. Mr. Tiwary has referred to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being read with Sections 212 and 290 of the Cr PC, and he has also referred to a Single Bench judgment of this Court as reported in Hari Krishna Sahay v. State of Bihar, 1978 BBCJ 306 and also a judgment of Kerala High Court as reported in E.K. Thankappan v. Union of India, 1989 Cr LJ page 2374. But, in the present case, those are not applicable in the sense that Section 220, sub-section (2), deals with amalgamation of offence with regard to criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property. Here, there is no charge of criminal breach of trust nor of dishonest misappropriation directly of the property. There is charge of cheating the BCCL by preparing fake bills in the name of the contractor and giving scope of illegal gains for themselves and also to the contractor to the detriment of the interest of the BCCL. Here, there is no charge of criminal breach of trust nor of dishonest misappropriation directly of the property. There is charge of cheating the BCCL by preparing fake bills in the name of the contractor and giving scope of illegal gains for themselves and also to the contractor to the detriment of the interest of the BCCL. So, direct charges of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation is not there. So, those provisions are not applicable in the present case. 8-A. The Single Bench case of this Court as referred to related to offence committed in course of a year of breach of trust and misappropriation in the two districts and as the accused wanted, it was ordered that both the cases should be brought in one district and then amalgamated trial should proceed. In the Kerala High Court case, there was already joinder of three charges and conclusion was arrived at and after the conviction the point was raised that such joinder of parties were illegal and not in conformity with Section 220/290/212 of the Cr PC. After the consideration of the materials on the record and the nature of cases and allegations it was held that the amalgamation made by the trial court was not improper or illegal. 9. Here, in the present case, learned court below gave cogent reasons as to why amalgamation cannot be done. Although, the nature of allegations might be the same but the documents are different and parties are also different and not only the fake bills the related documents were also different, hence the learned court below held that amalgamation would create difficulty not only for the prosecution but it would also be prejudicial to the accused persons. 10. In that view of the matter, as no irregularity of illegality could be detected in the impugned order passed. I do not find any scope to interfere with the same under Section 482. Cr PC, hence the petition is rejected, having no force.