- (1.)The Special Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai framed three charges against the petitioner/accused. The first charge is that they entered into a conspiracy to cheat the Government and that they are liable to be punished under S. 120-B, I.P.C. The second charge is that the first petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,43,827/- and that the second petitioner misappropriated Rs. 46,136/- and that they are liable to be punished u/S. 409, I.P.C. For the said Act, they were also charged under Ss. 13(2) and 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After framing the above charges, the accused filed a petition under S. 218, Cr. P.C. stating that there are misjoinder of charges and that
different transactions are said to have taken place at different periods and that, therefore, they cannot be tried jointly. For the above memo, the respondent-State has filed a counter stating that there is no misjoinder of charges.

(2.)The trial Court on a consideration of the materials has held that the question of misjoinder of charges does not arise in this case and that both the accused can be tried jointly. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision is filed.
(3.)Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the transactions alleged against the petitioners are distinct and separate and that, therefore, separate trial ought to have been ordered and that the trial would be vitiated by Ss. 219 and 223, Cr. P.C. and that there are no materials to show that there was any conspiracy to commit the offence as described in the charge-sheet.