Judgment :- (Petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code praying for issuance of a direction to withdraw S.C.No.500 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai and transfer the same to the file of the Court of competent jurisdiction in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and allow this petition.) The petition is filed seeking transfer of S.C.No.500 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai to the Court of competent jurisdiction in the Union Territory of Pondicherry for trial of the case in accordance with law. 2. The petitioner is the first accused and the respondents 2 to 12 are other accused in the aforesaid case launched for the offences under Sections 307, 120-B, 452, 326 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the first respondent/complainant. 3. The sum and substance of the grounds for transfer alleged in the petition is that the case in S.C.No.94 of 2005 pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry is connected and inter related with the present case inasmuch as the conspiracy to commit both the offences emanated from one and the same place and at the same time. It is further alleged that the same investigating team took up the investigation of this matter also and laid chargesheet against the accused in this case. As the State Machinery had taken all out efforts in the murder case which is now pending before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to transfer the case from the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chinglepet, where the murder case was originally pending, to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry for trial according to law. It is further contended that the petitioner genuinely apprehends that the State Machinery and the Investigating Agency may stoop to any level to receive a judgment of conviction as against the petitioner, though the petitioner is innocent as regards the cases launched against him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has heavily come down upon the manner in which the State Machinery and the Investigating Agency were used for the purpose of securing conviction of the accused. The very same apprehension is afflicting the accused in this case of attempting to murder also, it is submitted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has heavily come down upon the manner in which the State Machinery and the Investigating Agency were used for the purpose of securing conviction of the accused. The very same apprehension is afflicting the accused in this case of attempting to murder also, it is submitted. Inasmuch as both the cases are inter connected as seen from the statements of the approver and the letter addressed by Investigating Officer to the Court, in the interest of justice, both the cases will have to be tried together by one and the same Court for better appreciation. Learned counsel for the petitioner would lastly submit that the petitioner and the other accused will not definitely have any fair trial, if the trial is continued in the State of Tamil Nadu. 5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the first respondent/State would submit that except the place of conspiracy to commit both the offences, there is no nexus between those two cases. It is his submission that it is not a case of case and counter-case where the same Court will have to try both the cases simultaneously and record its verdict. He would further contend that the date of hatching the conspiracy, the date of commission of the offence of murder and attempting to murder are not one and the same. It is true that the same Investigating Agency happened to investigate both the matters, but the facet of one case is different from the other, it is submitted. It is his vehement submission that if at all the petitioner has any problem in continuing the present case in the State of Tamil Nadu, he would have definitely brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court when the transfer petition was moved by him concerning the other case of murder which is pending, on transfer, before the learned Principal Sessions Court at Pondicherry. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would bring to the notice of this Court that the one Sessions Court will have to undertake a mammoth exercise to examine as many as 370 witnesses in a case of murder and as many as 81 witnesses in yet another case of attempting to murder. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor would bring to the notice of this Court that the one Sessions Court will have to undertake a mammoth exercise to examine as many as 370 witnesses in a case of murder and as many as 81 witnesses in yet another case of attempting to murder. The last submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the first respondent is that the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has a bearing only on the case of murder, which of course was transferred to the soil of Pondicherry Union Territory. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 12 adopt the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. The fact remains that the same Investigating Team took up both the cases and conducted the investigation and filed chargesheet separately. 9. On a perusal of the statements of the approver before the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in connection with the case of murder of Sankarraman and the case of attempting to murder Radhakrishnan, the approver Ravi Subramaniam has stated that the petitioner herein handed over the photographs of those two victims to pass it on to accused Kathiravan for the purpose of execution of his game plan. That version apart, which of course lends some connection between those two cases, the Court finds that there is no other connecting link between those two cases. 10. The Special Investigation Team had to take up the case of attempting to murder also as it came to light to them through one Meenakshisundaram one of the accused in the case that there was some involvement of the petitioner herein also in the case of attempting to murder Radhakrishnan. Though the Investigating Agency had taken up both the cases for investigation, two separate process had been adopted to investigate the individual cases. 11. Of course, in the letter addressed by the Additional Superintendent of Police to the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, he has specifically referred to the inter connection between those two cases. Quite probably on account of the alleged involvement of the petitioner in both the cases and the conspiracy emanated from the very same place, the said Officer would have made such a reference in the letter addressed to the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. Quite probably on account of the alleged involvement of the petitioner in both the cases and the conspiracy emanated from the very same place, the said Officer would have made such a reference in the letter addressed to the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. But on a perusal of the entire investigation done by the Investigating sleuths in both the cases, it is found that the investigation of the individual cases has marched separately on its own direction and reached its logical destination. 12. The Prosecuting Agency has come out with a case that the date of conspiracy and the date of commission of the offence in both the cases are totally different. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the first respondent, it is not a case and a counter-case where the same Court will have to deal with both the cases simultaneously. 13. The very same petitioner had moved a transfer petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and having alleged oppression of the State Machinery sought a transfer of Sankarraman murder case from the State of Tamil Nadu to some other State. The petitioner herein is very well aware of the investigation being undertaken by the very same Investigating Agency in connection with the case of attempting to murder Radhakrishnan. The petitioner had not chosen to bring to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the threat perception or apprehension in the mind of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case also for the purpose of transfer from the State of Tamil Nadu to some other State. 14. It is further found that the whole allegation made in the aforesaid transfer petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court revolves around the case of Sankarraman murder case. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said transfer case cannot be applied to the case on hand. 15. There is no allegation in this transfer petition that the petitioner may not get justice from the Sessions Division which deals now with the present case. As many as 370 witnesses will have to be examined in the Sankarraman murder case by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. If this case where 81 witnesses will have to be examined is tagged with the said case of murder, it will really be a tiresome exercise and the Court will definitely be exhausted. As many as 370 witnesses will have to be examined in the Sankarraman murder case by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry. If this case where 81 witnesses will have to be examined is tagged with the said case of murder, it will really be a tiresome exercise and the Court will definitely be exhausted. The termination of trial of those cases if taken together will definitely take quite a long time. The witnesses in this particular case are reportedly residing in and around Kancheepuram. As both the cases are not at all connected materially with each other, the same cannot be clubbed together either for common disposal or for simultaneous disposal. 16. Considering the distinct offences levelled against the petitioner and respondents 2 to 12 and others in those two cases, separate investigation process adopted by the Special Investigating Team and altogether dissimilar materials collected by the Investigating Agency and the ordeal that may be faced by the witnesses to travel all the way from Kancheepuram to attend the proceedings in Pondicherry, the Court finds that the prayer for transfer sought for by the petitioner is not sustainable. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected criminal miscellaneous petition also stands dismissed.