ORDER : These petitions are heard and disposed of together, as the same are inter-related. In Crl.R.P.1227/2016: The first petitioner is said to be an Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Tumakuru and is a resident of Tumakuru. The second petitioner is the daughter of the first petitioner and is a resident of Bangalore. It transpires that the Lokayuktha Police, Tumakuru, had filed an FIR before the Court of the Special Judge, in Crime No.1/2016 for an offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (Hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’, for brevity) against the petitioner no. 1 and another. It is said that he was arrested and taken into custody, simultaneously his house was said to have been searched. This was between 2:30 and 8:00 p.m. on 16.1.2016. Based on the source report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, Tumakuru, an FIR is said to have been registered for an offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act on 4.2.2016 against petitioner no.1 alleging that he has amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. During the course of the search, several valuables and property including cash was said to have been seized. The case is said to be still under investigation. Apart from the seizure of properties at the residence of petitioner no.1, it is stated that seizures have been made of valuables from petitioner no.2 and one Srikanth a relative of Petitioner no.1. The petitioners having filed an application before the court below seeking release of the seized property after furnishing elaborate details of the true ownership of the several items of valuables and cash as vesting with other members of the family of the petitioners and material to demonstrate the sources of acquisition, the court below having rejected the application, the present petition is filed. 2. The learned counsel contends that in spite of the petitioners having placed adequate material before the court below to demonstrate that the properties seized could not be treated as properties belonging to the accused and that the same ought to released in favour of the true owners, the court below having held that the investigation is yet to be completed and hence the application for release of the articles could not be entertained, has resulted in a gross miscarriage of justice. Hence the intervention of this court is sought for. In Crl.P.6883/2016: The petitioner is also petitioner no.1 in the first of these petitions. As already stated, a case having been registered in Crime no.1/2016 and after the seizure of the purported incriminating material, the same has been transferred to the record of the case registered separately in Crime no.3/2016, against the petitioner for an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. It is the maintainability of the second case registered that is the subject matter of the second of these petitions. It is contended that the second case has been registered on the basis of the alleged material gathered pursuant to a search and seizure conducted in the course of the proceedings pertaining to the first case, in Crime no.1/2016, (for an offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act). The seizure therein could not be claimed as part of the record, without reference to any provision of law, of the second case, Crime no.3/2016, (for an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) PC Act). The proceedings in the second case are thus contended to be perverse and illegal and liable to be quashed. 3. It is contended that even if it could be said that a preliminary enquiry is permissible in a corruption case, a search and seizure and gathering of evidence even before the registration of an FIR, if is impermissible as laid down by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP, AIR 2014 SC 187 , the exercise now carried out in transferring the properties seized in Crime no.1/2016, to sustain the case which is subsequently registered in Crime no.3/2016 has resulted in enabling the prosecution to carry out indirectly, what was not permissible directly. In that, if an investigation in respect of a cognizable offence is prohibited, without registration of an FIR, the transfer of the seized properties seized in one case and reliance on the same as the basis for a case registered subsequently, would be opposed to the settled law. It is emphasized that a search and seizure can never be characterized as being in the realm of a preliminary enquiry, to draw sustenance from the exception carved out in Lalita Kumari's case. It is emphasized that a search and seizure can never be characterized as being in the realm of a preliminary enquiry, to draw sustenance from the exception carved out in Lalita Kumari's case. The preliminary enquiry contemplated is such enquiry which is carried out to ascertain whether there is commission of a cognizable offence and nothing more. Hence the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks that the proceedings in the case in Crime no.3/2016 be quashed. 4. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, would contend that the petitions are misconceived. It is pointed out that the seizure of the large cache of valuables and cash, even from a drain pipe -was from the house of the petitioner no.1 and his daughter. The claim for release of the same on the basis that several of the items belonged to others, is inexplicably made, not by those others but the petitioners themselves. Secondly, the investigation is yet to be completed and hence the court below had rightly rejected the application for release of the articles. In so far as the contention that the second case instituted against the petitioner being invalid and illegal, is concerned, it is urged that even if the search and seizure, preceding the registration of the FIR is to be construed as irregular, it would not vitiate the proceedings -as has been laid down in a catena of decisions and hence it is contended that the primary ground urged is untenable. Attention is drawn to Section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which provides that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately. Except that where the accused makes an application seeking that the charges be tried together or the Magistrate is of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the accused, he may decide to so try the offences together. Hence it is contended that the petitioner may be left to his remedies before the court below. It is also contended that two separate cases having been registered for disparate nature of offences, the evidence also being tendered through witnesses who may not be common, it would lead to a cumbersome procedure as the two cases cannot be reconciled and tried together on account practical difficulties. Hence the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the petitions. 5. It is also contended that two separate cases having been registered for disparate nature of offences, the evidence also being tendered through witnesses who may not be common, it would lead to a cumbersome procedure as the two cases cannot be reconciled and tried together on account practical difficulties. Hence the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the petitions. 5. On a consideration of the above facts and circumstances and the rival contentions, in so far as the petition in Crl.R.P.1227/2016 is concerned, the court below has rejected the application of the petitioners on two grounds, namely, that the persons to whom the several items of property involved-belonged, were not before the court. Secondly, that the matter was still under investigation and the application was premature. It is the opinion of this court that the petitioners are not precluded from making another application, before the court below, possibly along with other owners of the several items of property, at an appropriate time after completion of the investigation-seeking appropriate relief. 6. In so far as the second of these petitions is concerned, the primary contention as to whether the search and seizure made pursuant to the further investigation in the first case in Crime no.1/2016, could form the basis for an FIR in a subsequently registered case in Crime no.3/2016, is certainly to be answered in the negative. Such a search and seizure preceding an FIR is not merely irregular it is illegal and impermissible, in the light of the law laid down in Lalita Kumari. However, the subsequent material gathered at the second search and seizure conducted and the distinct offence urged against the petitioner could have conveniently been the subject matter of a supplementary charge sheet, albeit against the petitioner alone. The plea of inconvenience or inconsistency notwithstanding, the task of reconciling the two cases and framing appropriate charges is not an impossibility and as it would certainly prejudice the interest of the petitioner in having to face two trials, it is necessary that the prosecution take appropriate corrective measures in this regard. Accordingly, the second of these petitions Crl.P.6883/2016 is allowed and the proceedings in Crime no.3/2016 instituted against the petitioner before the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, stands quashed. The respondent is not however, precluded from taking appropriate steps in accordance with law and under the supervision of the court below.