(1.) I have just now rejected another petition (Criminal Revision No. 48 of 1989, Jagdish Singh v. State of H.P.) by a detailed judgement holding that the charge under Ss.379/167/218/467/468/471/120-B, I.P.C. read with S.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1954, framed by the Special Judge, Shimla, against the petitioners and the pro forma respondents is legally justifiable.

(2.) Now, by this petition, these petitioners seek to challenge the order of Special Judge, Shimla, dated 29-5-1989, apparently to stall the trial of the case fixed from June 19, 1989 to June 30, 1989 on day to day basis, alleging that the decision of the Special Judge to conduct a joint trial of the petitioners with the other co-accused was legally impermissible. The petitioners allege that they cannot be jointly tried with the other accused as there is no nexus or connection between them and the co-accused in this case. It is further submitted that learned Special Judge was influenced by the decision of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal No. 67 of 1987 decided on 5-2-1987, AIR 1987 SC 773 , State of H.P. v. Krishan Lal Pardhan on the point of conspiracy alleged to have taken place between the petitioners and other co-accused in this case.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the learned Special Judge has looked into the facts of this case before concluding that the accused are connected along with others in the commission of the offences against them. It has not been pointed out as to how the provisions of S.223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable in the present case. It is relevant to reproduce S.223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure :-

"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 S.219 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months; (d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transactions; (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 Ss.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 Chapt X 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 may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire, and if he is satisfied that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons together."

(4.) After looking into these provisions and the facts of this case, I am of the opinion that the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners do not have any substance. The allegation of conspiracy has a substance. It was as a result of it that the trees in large number were illicitly felled and transported by the petitioners. This is a consequence of the initial act of the conspiracy between the accused and their connection inter se cannot, prima facie, be doubted.

(5.) The contention that the Special Judge was primarily influenced by the decision of the Supreme Court, as aforesaid, is not of much substance. Besides, giving cogent, convincing and independent reasons establishing the connection of all the accused in this case, the learned special Judge has rightly referred to the decision of the Supreme Court as this aspect of the matter was discussed, debated and decided in this case and it throws immense light and guidance as to the part played by the petitioners. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Special Judge has rightly sought assistance of the decision of the Supreme Court of India as referred to in this order by the Judge in addition to his own independent assessment of the matter.

(6.) The result is, there is no substance in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(7.) Before parting with the case, it is pointed out that the observations made hereinabove will neither affect the parties to the case nor influence the Special Judge in deciding this matter on merits in accordance with law. Petitioner dismissed.