ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Gauhati High Court and Mr. NNB Choudhury, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh. This reference has been made under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). Question for consideration in this reference is as under:- "Whether in the light of Section 223 (d) Cr.P.C. was the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Basar justified in directing separate trials in respect of Aalo Police Station Case Nos. 113/2016, 02/2013 and Likabali Police Station Case No. 29/2011 though all the offences relatable to the above cases were allegedly committed in the course of the same transaction?" 2. BSR/SESS-1/2016 (State v. Martin Bagra & Hikar Ado) has been registered in the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Basar arising out of Aalo PS Case No. 113/2016, under Sections 376/506 IPC. On 20.06.2016, learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Basar charged accused Martin Bagra under Sections 376/506/201 IPC and accused Hikar Ado under Section 212 IPC. 3. However, learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Basar took the view that since Section 212 IPC is triable by a Magistrate, the case record of accused Hikar Ado was transferred to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo for trial. 4. Likewise, BSR/SESS-836/2013 (State v. Marge Loyi & Ors.) has been registered before the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Basar arising out of Aalo PS Case No. 02/2013, under Sections 302/147/148/149/427/435 IPC. By order dated 24.2.14, learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Basar charged accused Marge Loyi under Section 302 IPC. She also charged other 14 accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 435 IPC. Since the above sections are triable by a Magistrate, therefore, learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Basar transferred the case of the 14 other accused persons for trial before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. 5. In BSR/SESS-831/2012 (State v. Mun Phukan & Ors.) arising out of Likabali PS Case No. 29/2011, under Sections 120(B)/307/324/394/34 IPC pending in the Court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Basar, an order was passed on 20.06.2014, thereby charging accused Mun Phukan and Sri Kari Taipodia under Sections 120(B)/307/324/394/34 IPC. The Court also charged Sri Niranjan Boruah under Section 166 IPC. It was observed that since Section 166 IPC is triable by a Magistrate, therefore, learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Basar, an order was passed on 20.06.2014, thereby charging accused Mun Phukan and Sri Kari Taipodia under Sections 120(B)/307/324/394/34 IPC. The Court also charged Sri Niranjan Boruah under Section 166 IPC. It was observed that since Section 166 IPC is triable by a Magistrate, therefore, learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Basar directed transfer of the case record of accused Niranjan Boruah to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo for trial. 6. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District, Aalo in his reference has referred to Section 223 (d) Cr.P.C. and has stated that the decision to bifurcate the cases was not justified in law. Besides such splitting up of cases would cause inconvenience to the prosecution as well as to the defence inasmuch as, the same set of witnesses would have to depose in two Courts for offences arising out of the same transaction. 7. This Court, while issuing notice in the reference on 24.01.2018, had stayed further proceedings in the above three cases. 8. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 9. Section 223 Cr.P.C. deals with the question as to what persons may be charged jointly. Section 223 Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder:- "223. 7. This Court, while issuing notice in the reference on 24.01.2018, had stayed further proceedings in the above three cases. 8. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 9. Section 223 Cr.P.C. deals with the question as to what persons may be charged jointly. Section 223 Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder:- "223. What persons may be charged jointly - The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:- (a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction; (b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; (c) persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the meaning of section 219 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months; (d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction; (e) persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion, cheating, or criminal misappropriation, and persons accused of receiving or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such offence committed by the first-named persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such last-named offence; (f) persons accused of offences under sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or either of those sections in respect of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence; (g) persons accused of offences under sections Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence; and the provisions contained in the former part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to all such charges: Provided that where a number of persons are charged with separate offences and such persons do not fall within any of the categories specified in this section, the Magistrate or Court of Session may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire, and if he or it is satisfied that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons together." 10. As per Section 223 (d), persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together. Therefore, the legal position is quite clear. In the course of the same transaction, if more than one offence is committed, for such different offences, the same set of accused persons need not be tried separately in different courts. To drive home this point, let us take a hypothetical case. In a particular case, the main charge may be under Section 302 IPC; together with this, there may be a collateral charge, such as, one under Section 324 IPC i.e., voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon or means having a much lesser sentence as well as under Section 448 IPC which is offence of house trespass. Under Section 324 IPC, on conviction, the sentence may be imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both; likewise, for the offence under Section 448 IPC, the sentence is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 1 year or fine upto Rs. 1,000/- or both. On the other hand, if convicted under Section 302 IPC, the sentence is either death or imprisonment for life and fine. The offence of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means as well as the offence of house trespass are triable by any Magistrate. On the other hand, Section 302 IPC is a sessions triable offence. Just because three separate charges are framed, one under Section 324 IPC, the other under Section 448 IPC and the third under Section 302 IPC, it does not mean that the three charges are to be tried separately by different courts i.e., charges under Section 324 and 448 IPC by any Magistrate and the charge under Section 302 IPC by a Court of Sessions. 11. Having regard to the mandate of Section 223 (d) Cr.P.C., it is quite evident that in such a situation, the court having competence to try the main offence having the maximum sentence would be competent to try the other ancillary offences together with the principal offence. 12. Of course, there can be exception to this proposition. For example, in the case of a juvenile but that is not the position here. 13. That being the position, learned Addl. 12. Of course, there can be exception to this proposition. For example, in the case of a juvenile but that is not the position here. 13. That being the position, learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Basar was not justified in splitting the three sessions cases and thereafter directing that trial of the offences having lesser sentence should be conducted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo. All the three orders dated 20.06.2016, in BSR/SESS No. 1/2016, 24.02.2014 in BSR/SESS No. 836/2013 and 20.06.2014 in BSR/SESS No. 831/2012 are interfered with to the limited extent by holding that splitting up of the three cases was uncalled for and consequential transfer of the case records of the accused persons for trial before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo for the lesser offences was not justified. All the three sessions cases shall be conducted by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Basar without splitting up the cases and separate trial of the charges framed. 14. Reference is answered accordingly. 15. Case records be sent back from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aalo to the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Basar. 16. Interim order passed on 24.01.2018 stands withdrawn. Registry to send down the LCRs forth-with.