Judgment : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is said to be an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who has been accused of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’ for brevity). In the course of trap proceedings, it transpires that the petitioner was asked to remove his uniform in order to wash the affected portions in sodium carbonate solution, to establish the presence of phenolphthalein powder on account of the tainted notes, which the petitioner had thrust into his pocket being established. However, it transpires that the petitioner had absconded immediately and escaped from the custody of the Lokayukta Police on the pretext that he did not have clothes to change and he had to urgently secure it from his home and therefore, had to go away. However, the Lokayukta Police had instituted a separate case insofar as the petitioner seeking to escape from their custody in independent proceedings, which has reached the stage of trial and it is at that stage that the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that there are two proceedings pending, one before the Special Court trying the offences punishable under the provisions of the PC Act and the other for the alleged escape from the custody of the Lokayukta Police under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for brevity). It is his contention that the trial insofar as the PC Act is concerned would proceed with expedition and the trial in respect off the provisions of the IPC is concerned, would not proceed at the same pace. However, the witnesses for the prosecution in both these cases are the same. This situation will result in the witnesses for the prosecution being alerted to any inconsistencies or discrepancies in the course of their evidence and would be alerted to tender evidence in favour of the prosecution in the subsequent trial that may go on. However, the witnesses for the prosecution in both these cases are the same. This situation will result in the witnesses for the prosecution being alerted to any inconsistencies or discrepancies in the course of their evidence and would be alerted to tender evidence in favour of the prosecution in the subsequent trial that may go on. This would result in grave prejudice to the petitioner and therefore, seeks a limited relief of staying the proceedings before the Magistrate pending in respect of the allegations for the punishment under the provisions of the IPC or in the alternative, to transfer the proceedings before the Special Court trying the offences punishable under the PC Act. This will not prejudice the case of the State in any way and it would save time and effort and it would also result in consistent findings being arrived at on the basis of evidence that may be common to an extent and hence, would seek interference of this Court. 4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would however point out that the relevant provisions that provide for the trial of several offences under various Acts prescribes an option to the Court below and does not mandate that it should be tried in a particular manner. The prosecution having elected to institute proceedings separately in respect of the offences punishable under the provisions of the PC Act and under the IPC, it is not open for the petitioner to claim as a matter of right that the trial in respect of those offences should be tried together. Notwithstanding the claim that it will ensure consistency and will save time and effort, is a matter for the prosecution to choose and since the law does not prohibit any such trial of the offences independently, the Court below not having entertained the prayer of the petitioner, cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. Having regard to the above circumstances, the petitioner is a man of the law and is well-aware of the procedure and it cannot be said that he would be prejudiced by the trial in two different Courts. Since the law does permit such trials, it cannot be said that as a matter of rule, it should be conducted before the same Court. Hence, the petition is rejected.