JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. I.A No. 6024 of 2023 This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of one day in preferring the present Criminal Appeal. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also after going through the cause shown in this interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay, I.A No. 6024 of 2023 is hereby allowed and delay in preferring the Criminal Appeal is condoned. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1012 of 2023 3. Munesh Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram @ Pradeep Verma, Bhikhan Ganjhu @ Deepak Kumar and Anischay Ganjhu are aggrieved by the order dated 19th May 2023 passed on their application filed under section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 848 of 2023. 4. In a nutshell, the stand of the above-named accused who are the appellants is that the charge framed against them is required to be modified taking into consideration first supplementary chargesheet dated 21st December 2018 and second supplementary chargesheet dated 10th January 2020 and thereafter the trial shall commence afresh. 5. Misc. Criminal Application No. 848 of 2023 has been dismissed by the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi on the ground that as many as 88 witnesses were already examined in RC Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI and for the following reasons: “ … It is pertinent to mention here that investigation of this case is still continued under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C accused Binod Ganjhu, Munesh Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram, Binod Ganjhu, Birbal Ganjhu, Laxman Ji @ Akraman Ji, Subhan Miyan and Sudhanshu Ranjan @ Chhotu were charge sheeted firstly in which A-8 Sudhanshu Ranjan @ Chhotu was made approver under section 306 of the Cr.P.C later on charge was framed against accused Ajit Thakur A-10 and Bhikhan Ganjhu separately and their case record started moving separately. Seeing the voluminous number of the chargesheet witnesses which is about 185 in number on the request of learned counsel of Ajit Thakur, Bhikhan Ganjhu and others their case was amalgamated in original case record vide order dated 18.1.2023, when the case record was amalgamated total witnesses were examined in both the case record except informant of this case namely Ramdhari Singh whose examination in chief was recorded in the original case record. But without cross-examination he died during Covid period and after that case record of Spl NIA 10003/2018 and original record 3/2018 is running together and altogether about 85 witnesses have been examined. ………… It further appears that petitioners have filed this petition under chapter XVII section 211 of Cr.P.C and prayed to try accused persons of the second supplementary chargesheet with accused persons of the first supplementary chargesheet which is not possible as First supplementary chargesheet was filed by the NIA on dated 21.12.2018. Accordingly, charge was framed against petitioner nos.1 to 9 and 15 on 23.8.2019. On the other hand accused persons of the first chargesheet A-10, A-11, A-12 and A-16 charge was framed on 3.12.2021 and secondary supplementary chargesheet was filed before the court on 10.1.2020. In second supplementary chargesheet cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial commissioner cum special Judge NIA on 13.01.2020 against which accused persons Vinit Agarwal, Amit Agarwal and Mahesh Agarwal were preferred Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 71/2020, 117/2020 and 119/2020 before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in which Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to pass order of the no coercive step against accused persons of the secondary supplementary chargesheet which was vacated on 18.1.2022. Thereafter, one by one accused persons of the second supplementary chargesheet appeared on case record. Their separate police papers were supplied to them. They preferred separate discharge petitions in view of the discharge petitions hearing has been completed and discharge petition of the accused Mahesh Agarwal is fixed for order on 31.05.2023. On the other hand discharge petition of accused Sudesh Kedia, Ajay Kumar and Amit Agarwal are fixed for hearing on 20/5/2023 and 22/5/2023 respectively. Those accused persons have got every right and opportunities to take their defence and pleas. In the present application surprisingly petitioners have demanded for joint trial of the accused persons of the secondary supplementary chargesheet. Trial of petitioners who were accused in the first supplementary chargesheet have proceeded rapidly which is likely to be concluded within few months as far as completion of prosecution evidence is concerned. …” 6. In the present application surprisingly petitioners have demanded for joint trial of the accused persons of the secondary supplementary chargesheet. Trial of petitioners who were accused in the first supplementary chargesheet have proceeded rapidly which is likely to be concluded within few months as far as completion of prosecution evidence is concerned. …” 6. Briefly stated, on a secret information regarding criminal activities of Tritiya Prastuti Committee (in short ‘TPC’) which formed an illegal committee ‘Shanti Sah Sanchalan Samiti’ in the coal bearing area under Tandwa PS, a police team raided the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu around 02.10 AM on 11th January 2016 and large sum of cash and two mobile phones were seized from his house. Birbal Ganjhu and Munesh Ganjhu (appellant no.1 herein) who were present in the house of Mukesh Ganjhu were found in possession of one loaded pistol, one country-made pistol with two large cartridges and mobile phones. They were also arrested by the raiding team and at the instance of Binod Kumar Ganjhu the police team conducted further raids in search of which huge money in cash and four mobile phones were recovered from the house of Pradeep Ram. Therefore, Tandwa PS Case No.2 of 2016 dated 11th January 2016 was registered under sections 414, 384, 386, 387 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and section 17(1) & (2) of the CLA Act. Later on this case was taken over by the NIA and re-registered as RC Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI dated 16th February 2018. First supplementary chargesheet was submitted on 21st December 2018 against sixteen accused including the present appellants and charges were framed against ten accused including appellant nos.1 and 2 namely, Munesh Ganjhu and Pradeep Ram. On the second supplementary chargesheet which was filed on 10th January 2020 against five accused, the Court took cognizance by an order dated 13th January 2020. However, in the meantime, by an order dated 3rd February 2020 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos.71/2020, 117/2020 and 119/2020 the High Court passed an interim order by virtue of which the proceedings against some of the accused were stayed. The aforementioned criminal appeals were dismissed on 18th January 2022 and thereafter charge was framed against Bhikhan Ganjhu. However, in the meantime, by an order dated 3rd February 2020 passed in Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos.71/2020, 117/2020 and 119/2020 the High Court passed an interim order by virtue of which the proceedings against some of the accused were stayed. The aforementioned criminal appeals were dismissed on 18th January 2022 and thereafter charge was framed against Bhikhan Ganjhu. As it is revealed from the records, this case pertains to criminal activities of TPC and its associates for extortion of money and the money laundering and in these activities several persons are involved whose complicity in the crimes could be detected as the investigation proceeded. 7. Section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives a description of the contents of a charge to be framed against the accused. Mr. Mokhtar Khan, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that all accused who were involved in commission of the offence in the course of the same transaction must be charged together whereas in the present case charges have been framed at different stages against different accused in different manner and this procedural irregularity shall vitiate the trial. Least to say, the application moved by the appellants under section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was completely misconceived. Similarly, the submission made on their behalf is equally misconceived inasmuch as the provisions under section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not mandate that trial against all the accused must commence and conclude together, notwithstanding some of the accused remaining absconder, or investigation/further investigation being pending against few others. The expression “in the course of the same transaction” cannot be stretched to mean that the trial against the appellants should remain in abeyance and only when all the accused are apprehended or available for framing of the charge and the trial, the Court can proceed with the matter. In “A. R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr.” (1988) 2 SCC 602 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an accused cannot assert a right to a joint trial with other co-accused and in fact it is the right of the prosecution to decide to whom and how to prosecute. In “A. R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Anr.” (1988) 2 SCC 602 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an accused cannot assert a right to a joint trial with other co-accused and in fact it is the right of the prosecution to decide to whom and how to prosecute. In “Lalu Prasad Alias Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State Through CBI (A.H.D), Ranchi Jharkhand” AIR 2003 SC 3838 a plea for joint trial by amalgamating the cases on the ground that there was one common conspiracy was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that the conspiracy was only an allied offence to the main offence and it was really difficult to hold that the alleged overt act of siphoning money out of different treasuries at different times were in the course of the same transaction. 8. In “Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors.” (2013) 5 SCC 762 , on which the learned counsel for the appellants puts heavy reliance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the following issues: “Question No.1: Whether in exercise of its powers under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Code’), the Trial Court has the jurisdiction to ignore any one of the reports, where there are two reports by the same or different investigating agencies in furtherance of the orders of a Court? If so, to what effect? Question No.2: Whether the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short ‘the CBI’) is empowered to conduct ‘fresh’/’re-investigation’ when the cognizance has already been taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of a police report under Section 173 of the Code?” 9. As it would appear on a glance at the aforesaid issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the relevance of the report forwarded by the Central Bureau of Investigation under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In “Vinay Tyagi” the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Magistrate at the stage of taking cognizance is required to bestow its attention to all the materials which were collected during the investigation including the one which formed part of the Final Form submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The issue which was raised by the appellants before the Special Judge was entirely different and the judgment in “Vinay Tyagi” does not offer any help to them. The issue which was raised by the appellants before the Special Judge was entirely different and the judgment in “Vinay Tyagi” does not offer any help to them. It is not contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure that in all eventualities a trial must commence only upon a common charge framed against all the accused, notwithstanding different roles played by them. Rather, the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure under section 218 provides that a separate charge has to be framed for every distinct offence. The plea raised by the appellants if accepted would not only affect the ongoing trial in which by now 107 witnesses have been examined, in a given case the split-up trial also then must be amalgamated with a trial which may be at the verge of conclusion. 10. “Essar Teleholdings Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation” (2015) 10 SCC 562 deals with this issue elaborately. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “21. We find that the Special Judge, vide the order dated 2-9-2013, has given cogent reasons for not exercising his discretion to order a joint trial. He stated that the evidence in the main case has almost reached the end and as many as 146 witnesses in the main case and 71 witnesses in the second supplementary charge-sheet have already been examined, clubbing the two cases together would result in the wastage of the effort already gone into and would lead to a failure of justice. The learned Judge concluded as follows: “47. In the end I may add that it is not obligatory on the Court to hold a joint trial and provisions of these sections are only enabling provisions. An accused cannot insist with ulterior purpose or otherwise that he be tried as co-accused with other accused, that too in a different case. It is only a discretionary power and Court may allow it in a particular case if the interest of justice so demands to prevent miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, neither the facts and allegations are common, nor is evidence common nor were the accused acting with a commonality of purpose and, as such, there is no ground for holding a joint trial. I may also add that holding a joint trial at this stage may lead to miscarriage of justice. 48. In the instant case, neither the facts and allegations are common, nor is evidence common nor were the accused acting with a commonality of purpose and, as such, there is no ground for holding a joint trial. I may also add that holding a joint trial at this stage may lead to miscarriage of justice. 48. In my humble view, a Court may not deem it desirable to conduct a joint trial, even if conditions of these sections are satisfied, though not satisfied in the instant case, that is: (a) when joint trial would prolong the trial; (b) cause unnecessary wastage of judicial time; and (c) confuse or cause prejudice to the accused, who had taken part only in some minor offence.” 11. Misc. Criminal Application No. 848 of 2023 has been dismissed primarily for the reason that the trial against the accused who were sent up for trial in first supplementary chargesheet is at an advance stage whereas even the charge has not been framed against other accused forwarded through second supplementary chargesheet. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1012 of 2023 which is, accordingly, dismissed.