ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant was working as a Panchayat Secretary to the Gram Panchayat. There are 47 cases registered against the appellant in the form of FIRs under sections 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code alongwith 6section 13(l)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution alleges that during his tenure as Secretary of the particular Gram Panchayat he was involved in 47 cases, along with other officials & elected representatives in Panchayat, of wrongly giving plots of land to ineligible persons who were not even residents of the village. 3. The trial has to take place before a Special Judge, Special Court (P.C. Act), Mandsaur (Madhya Pradesh). By now, in most of the cases, chargesheets have already been filed. The appellant had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh praying therein to consolidate and club all the 46 FIRs with the first FIR No.311/2015 registered at P.S. Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Office, Ujjain and there be a single trial as the multiplicity of trial is to the detriment of both prosecution as well as the defence. The High Court though did not agree with this prayer and writ petition has been dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant at bar before this Court has relied upon the provisions of 219 to 223 of Cr.P.C. and would argue that in such a case there has to be a single trial or at the best there has to be two trials for the reason that there were two Resolutions but there cannot be 47 different cases for the appellant to face. Section 219 and Section 223 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: Section 219. Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together. (1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. (1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. (2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or of any special or local laws : Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under Section 380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such attempt is an offence. Section 223. What persons may be charged jointly. Section 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, 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 lastnamed 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 any offence under 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] [Substituted by Act 25 of 2005, Section 21, for "Magistrate" (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).] may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire, and [if he or it is satisfied] [Substituted by At 25 of 2005, Section 21, for "if he is satisfied" (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).] that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons together. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that this is not possible considering that these all are separate cases and accused in these cases are also different. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that this is not possible considering that these all are separate cases and accused in these cases are also different. Moreover, certain practical difficulties have also been shown by the respondents and there is apprehension of delay in case joint trial is held. 6. We have gone through the provisions of law as placed before us as well as the judgments cited in their favour by the learned respective counsels. The sum and substance of the case herein is whether there has to be a joint trial or separate trials. This, however, has to be decided first by the trial court itself where the proceedings are pending. Theoretically yes, a joint trial in such cases is permissible, but the decision in the first instance has to be taken by the Trial Court concerned. The High Court too has taken a view with which we are presently not in disagreement as it is a possible view6, but this question has to be first decided by the Trial Court itself. 7. In view of the above and particularly in view of judgment in the case “State of Jharkhand Vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav” (2017)8 SCC 1 , we dispose of the appeal leaving it open to the Trial Court to take a call on this and dispose of the matter expeditiously, and to that extent and for the limited reasons stated above the High Court’s order is set aside. In case charges have been framed and trial has begun, it should proceed in letter and spirit of the provisions under section 309 of Cr. P.C. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s)disposed of.