JUDGMENT 1. - Both these petitions under section 482 have been filed against the order passed by Special Judge, Printing & Stationary Misappropriation Cases and CBI Cases, Jaipur in Special Case No. 28/2008 in which the counsel has declined the application of the present petitioners filed on the ground that there cannot be two trials for the same facts. 2. Since in both these cases common facts are involved and both these matters arise out of same special case, both these petitions are decided by this common order. 3. The contention of the present petitioners is that complainant Mohan Lal filed a complaint for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur, Distt. Slkar, on which FIR No. 72/2003 has been registered and after chequered history of the Investigation, charge-sheet was submitted before the concerned court. On the same facts, allegations and for the same Incident, Senior Divisional Manager, LIC of India has also lodged FIR before the Central Bureau of Investigation, Jaipur upon which FIR No. RC JAI 2004 A 0027 (27-A/04) has been registered and after Investigation a charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 120-B, 409, 471, 477 IPC read with Section 13 (2) and 13(2)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The contention of the present petitioners is that on the same allegations and facts two prosecutions could not be continued, application has been moved before the court below but learned Special Judge has shown his disability to order for quashing of the proceedings looking to the provisions of Section 186 Cr.PC. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and perused the impugned order and material available in reference to these FIRs. 5. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI and perused the impugned order and material available in reference to these FIRs. 5. It is not in dispute that first FIR in time is 72/2003 and CBI has registered the FIR subsequently and contention of the present petitioners is that looking to the law laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala & ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181 , the second FIR is not maintainable but the contention of the counsel for the CBI is that it is true that FIR registered at CBI is second FIR but for this FIR charges-sheet has been filed first and thereafter police has filed charge-sheet in FIR No. 72/2003. Apart from it, the facts are also not in dispute that in FIR No. 72/2003, 6 persons have been charge-sheeted whereas 5 persons have been charge-sheeted by the CBI and all accused persons are not same in the two charge-sheets. it is true that present petitioners are included in both charge-sheets and they cannot be forced to defend themselves in two charge- sheets, it would be a double jeopardy for the petitioners but at the same time, these facts are also admitted that in FIR 72/2003, charge-sheet has been filed under Section 420, 467, 468 read with 120-B IPC whereas apart from the above offences, C.B.I. has filed charge-sheet for the offence under Section 409 and Section 13 (2) (C) and 13 (2) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, hence in view of the above, it will be in the fitness of things and while considering the provisions of Section 186 Cr.P.C., that case No. 439/2012 pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur in relation to FIR No. 72/2003 will stand transferred to the court of Special Judge, Printing and Stationery, Misappropriation Cases, CBI Jaipur and both the prosecution under,both the impugned FIRs will be conducted jointly by the Special Judge.With these observation, both the petitions are disposed of. A copy of this d order be sent to both the courts below. *******