Holding

The High Court’s refusal to order joint trial, amalgamation, or transfer was correct; the cases cannot be combined as they are not ready, lack requisite consent, and the conspiracy charge is only an allied offence.

Summary

The appellants, former Chief Ministers of Bihar, sought a joint trial and transfer of six corruption and conspiracy cases pending before various Special Judges in Jharkhand. They argued that a single conspiracy linked the cases, with common witnesses and documents, and that separate trials would cause undue hardship. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in rejecting the applications because the cases had not all reached the charge‑framing stage, consent of all other accused was absent, and the conspiracy offence is merely an allied offence to the main corruption charges, not part of the same transaction. Consequently, amalgamation under Section 223 CrPC and transfer under Section 407 CrPC were not permissible. The Court also noted that the existing courts were functioning efficiently and a transfer could prejudice other accused. All appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of ordering a joint trial/amalgamation of multiple cases under Section 223 CrPC when not all cases have reached charge‑framing and consent of other accused is lacking.
Whether the conspiracy offences under the IPC constitute the same transaction as the main offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act for purposes of joint trial.
Whether a transfer of the cases to a single court under Section 407 CrPC is justified given the efficient functioning of the existing courts and potential prejudice to other accused.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 223, s. 407
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120, s. 411, s. 414
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988s. 13(1)(c), s. 13(1)(d)

Subjects

joint trialamalgamationSection 223 CrPCSection 407 CrPCPrevention of Corruption Actconspiracyallied offenceconsent of accusedtransfer of casesspecial judgemultiple prosecutionsprocedural law

Judgment

A LALU PRASAD @ LALU PRASAD YADA V
v.
STATE THROUGH C.B.I. (A.H.D.) RANCHI, JHARKHAND

AUGUST 26, 2003

B [S.N. VARIAVA, P.VENKATARAMA REDDI AND ASHOK BHAN, Jl]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 223 and 407:

Trial of cases of corruption/conspiracy by the Special Judges at two
C places-'-Transfer petition for trial at one place/joint trial-Rejected by the
trial Court and the High Court-On appeal, Held, In the absence .ef consent
of other accused for joint trial/amalgamation in all the cases, it ii not
appropriate to permit the appellants to obtain consent from the remaining
accused bye-passing the trial Court-The cases are being disposed of
D expeditiously-Transfer of the cases to one Court may prejudicially affect
other accused-The High Court has rightly held that since the charges had
not been framed in all the cases, it was not appropriate to decide on the joint
trial/amalgamation ofthe cases-Transfer ofthe cases not allowed-Application
for using_ the evidence of common witnesses recorded in one case to other
case could be considered by the Special Judge/trial Court on merit-Penal
E Code, /86~onspiracy-Prevention of Corruption Act.

Appellants - two Ex-Chief Ministers of Bihar and others have been
accused of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and of the
offence of conspiracy under the Penal Code and the cases against them
F were pending before the Special Judge at Patna. Later, pursuant to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in CBI v. Braj Bhushan Prasad, [2001) 9 ·
SCC 432, some of the cases have been transferred to the Courts of Special
Judges, Jharkhand. A petition was filed in the cases pending before the
Special Judge at Patna for joint trial at Jharkhand, which was rejected.
Appeals were also rejected by the High Court. Thereafter, the High Court
G at Jharkhanrl rejected the writ petition ~nd transfer petition for
amalgamation/transfer of the cases in one Court for trial. Hence the
present appeals.

In support of the petitions/appeals for transfer of all the cases at one
place, it was contended for the appellants that though the High Court at
H 1002
LALU PRASAD@LALUPRASAD YADAV v. STATE THROUGH C.B.I. (A.H.D.) RANCID, JHARKHAND 1033

Patna dismissed the petition for joint trial but held that there was a single A
conspiracy in all the cases; that the object of the alleged conspiracy was
to withdraw money from treasuries presently located in the State of
Jharkhand; that large number of common witnesses/documents would be
examined; and that the evidence of common witnesses if examined
separately in all the cases, there was strong probability of their evidence B
being different.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The High Court has rightly held that the question of joipt
trial could be decided only when the other connected cases are also ready C
and reach the stage of framing of the charges. Since all the cases have not
reached the stage of framing of the charges, the application was
premature. Moreov~r, the joint trial is likely to result in delay in trial of
another connected case at Patna which has been progressing considerably.
The High Court has rightly held that it is the trial Court which would
have to consider the stand of other accused persons who have not prayed D
for joint trial. Most of the other accused persons have not applied for joint
trial. This Court does not know what their stand was. Consent had to be
obtained before the application for amalgamation was made. It was for
the Special Judge to consider whether it was expedient and in the interest
of justice that all accused persons, in all the cases, be tried jointly. It is E
neither expedient nor proper that the Appellants be permitted to bypass
the trial Court to obtain consent from all the accused for joint trial at
this stage. (1040-D, E, F, G)

1.2. Earlier, this Court held in a connected case that the main
offences were under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the offence F
of conspiracy is an allied offence to the main offence under the Prevention
of Corruption Act. The cases are before the Special Judges because the
main offences are under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The main
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in each case is in respect
of the alleged transaction in that case. As conspiracy is only an allied G
offence it cannot be said that the alleged overt acts are in the course of
the same transaction. This Court is'bound by this decision. There exists
no reason to take a different view. Hence, these cases could not be
amalgamated. (1042-D, E, FJ

CBI v. Braj Bhushan Prasad, (2001 ( 9 SCC 432, referred to. H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 1.3. The High Court has rightly held that the cases cannot be
transferred to one Court as at present all the Courts are functioning
smoothly and fairly and the cases are being disposed of very expeditiously;
that transfer of the cases to one Court may prejudicially affect the other
accused persons. However, if the Appellants or any of them feel aggrieved
as being forced to hear the same evidence number of times, and if they
B desire so, they may apply to the Special Judges that evidence recorded in
one ~ase and documents marked as an exhibit may be used as evidence in
other cases also. The same would be considered by the Special Judge on
its merit. (1042-H; 1043-A-C)

C CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. I068
of 2003.

From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.9.2002 of the Jharkhand High
Court at Ranchi in W.P. (Crl.) No. 142 of 2002.

.D WITH

Crl. A. Nos. l 066 and 1067 of 2003.

P.S. Mishra, Ram Jethmalani, Manu Shanker Mishra, Tathagat Harsh
Vardhan, Nity_anand Jha, Ms. Swarupa Reddy, Amitesh Chandra Mishra,
E Rajesh Prasad Singh, B.B. Singh, C.R. Sinha, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Ajit
Kumar Sinha for the Appellants.

Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, A. Mariarputham, A.D.N.
Rao, Meenakshi Sakhardande, P.Parmeswaran and Irshad Ahmad for the
Respondent.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. N. VARIA VA, J. Leave granted.

He'ard parties.
G All these Appeals .can be disposed of by this common Order even
though the prayer made in Dr Jagannath Mishra's case is only for transfer
whilst in the other Appeals the prayer is for amalgamation of trials.

Briefly stated the facts are as follows:
H Dr Jagannath Mishra and Laloo Prasad Yadav are Ex Chief Ministers
LAW PRASAD@ LALU PRASAD YADAY 1·. STATE IBROUGH C.B.l. (AH.D.) RANCHI. JHARKHAND [VARIAVA, l.ij OJ 5

of the State of Bihar. They and the other Appellants have been accused of A
charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and of the offence of
conspiracy to defraud the Government exchequer of large sums of money. A
large number of complaints have been filed and the cases are being prosecuted
by CBI before various Special Courts both in the State of Jharkhand as well
as the State of Bihar. We are concerned with 6 such cases which are pending B
before Special Courts in the State of Jharkhand.

. It must be mentioned that earlier the cases were before the Special
Judge at Patna. However pursuant to a Judgment of this C9urt in the case of
CBI v. Braj Bhushan Prasad reported in [200 I] 9 SCC 432 these cases have
been transferred to the Courts of Special Judges, Jharkhand. When two of C
these cases namely RC. 20 (A)/96 and RC. 64 (A)/96 were pending before
the Special Judge at Patna, an application was made for joint trial of these
cases. This was rejected by the Special Judge. The High Court rejected the
Criminal Appeal which was filed against the order of rejection. This Judgment
'. is reported in 2000 (3) Patna Law Journal Reports 357.
D
Thereafter Writ Petitions (Criminal) and a Criminal Misc. Petition were
filed before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi for amalgamation of 5
cases. Dr Jagannath Mishra, by his Transfer Petition applied for transfer of
5 cases to one Court. Dr Jagannath Mishra's Petition was dismissed by the
impugned Order dated 6th August, 2002. The other Writ Petitions and Crl.
Misc. Petitions were dismissed by the impugned Order dated I0th September, E
2002. Hence these Appeals. Before us all are applying for amalgamation of
6 cases.

It was submitted, on behalf of the Appellants, that even though the
Appeals were dismissed by Patna High Court it has been held that there was F
a single conspiracy. It was submitted that the application for amalgamation
was filed pursuant to the liberty granted by the Patna High Court while
dismissing the Appeals. It was submitted that, according to the prosecution,
there was a large conspiracy involving the then Chief Ministers and other
officers of the Animal Husbandry Department. It was submitted that according
to the prosecution the object of the conspiracy was to withdraw/siphon out G
government monies from various Treasuries which were earlier in the State
of Bihar and now fall in the State of Jharkhand. It was submitted that the
overt acts are alleged to have been committed in pursuance of this large
conspiracy. It was submitted that in the overt acts there would be local people
who are not part of the larger conspiracy. It was submitted that offences H
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A committed in pursuance of one conspiracy are offences committed in the
course of the same transaction. It was submitted that the main accused namely
the Appellants have been charged only on the basis of the large conspiracy.
It was submitted that in all the cases, as against the Appellants, there would
be same witnesses and same documents. It was submitted that there are 58
witnesses who would be common in all the 6 cases. It was submitted that
B there are approximately l 00 documents which are also common in all the 6
cases. It was submitted that the prosecution had admitted, in paragraphs 10
to 12 of the affidavit in reply filed before the Special Judge, that there was
a single conspiracy and that the above-mentioned witnesses and documents
were common. It was submitted that if these witnesses hav.e to depose
C separately in all the 6 cases, there was a strong possibility of their evidence
being different and of their being conflict of decisions. It was submitted that
the Appellants would have to hear the evidence of the same witnesses in 6
trial

In support of the submission that offences committed in pursuance of
D one conspiracy are offences committed in the course of the same transaction
reliance was placed on the case of K. Kunhahammad v. The State ofMadras,
reported in AIR (1960) Supreme Court 661. Reference was also made to· the
cases of Babula/ Chaukhani v. King-Emperor reported in AIR (1938) PC
130, S. Swamirathnam v. State of Madras etc. reported in AIR (1957) SC
E 340, Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar reported in [2001] 4 sec 350, Balbir
v. State of Haryana reported in {2000] 1 SCC 285 and State of Bihar v.
Ranchi Zila Samia Party reported in [1996] 3)SCC 682. There can be no
dispute with the proposition of law. It is however to be seen whether the
proposition has any application to this case.

p At this stage it is necessary to set out details and particulars of the 6
cases sought to be amalgamated. These are as follows:

SI. Case P.S. Case Amount No. of Treasury Stage
No. No. RCs No. involved accused ·
persons
G
l. 20(A)96- 12/96 37.7 Crores 56 Cbaibasa Evidence (

Pat Chaibasa (A total of
P.S. 174 PWs
examined)
H
LALU PRASAD@ LALU PRASAD YADAY v. STATE 1HROUGH C.B.I. (A.H.D.) RANCHI, JHARKHAND [VARIAVA. I.~ OJ 7

2. 38(A)/96- 16/96 3, 76,38,853/- 48 + l Dumka Appearance A
Pat Dumka P.S. = 49

3. 47(A)/96 50196 183 Crores 171 + Doranda Appearance
Pat Doranda 69 =
P.S. 240
4. 63(A)/96- Complaint 45,96,048/- 44 Bhagalpur Appearance B
Pat received & Banka
.,.
from State
~
5. 64(A)/96- Source 97 Lakhs 34 + 4 Deoghar Charge
I
i Pat Information = 38 framing
'
---.l c
6. 68(A)/96- Source 37.62 Crores 75 + l Chaibasa Charge
Pat Information = 38 framing

The application for amalgamation of cases is under Section 223 of the
Criminal Procedure Code which reads as under:

"223. What persons may be charged jointly.- The following persons. D
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 E
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 F
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 G
~ transferred by any such offence committed by the first-named
persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such
last-named offence;
(t) persons accused of offences under sections 411 and 414 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or either of those sections in H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 !O counterfeit coin and persons
accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to
B the same coin, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any
such offence; and the provisions contained in the fonner part of
this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply in 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
C specified in this section, the Magistrate may, if such persons by an
application in writing, so desire, and ifhe is satisfied that such persons
would not be prejudicially affected th~reby, and it is expedient so to
do, try all such persons together."

It is thus to be seen that irrespective of the applicability of clauses (a) to (g),
D Section 223 gives to the Magistrate a discretion to amalgamate cases. The
Magistrate hast~ be satisfied that persons would not be prejudicially affected
and that it is expedient to amalgamate cases. As has been set out hereinabove,
on a prior occasion the application for amalgamation has been rejected by the
Special Judge. The High Court has also rejected the Appeal. Under the
circumstances, a fresh application for the same relief would not nonnally lie.
E Faced with this situation it had been submitted that the presentapplication for
amalgamation had been made as tlie High Court had already held that there
was a single conspiracy and had given liberty to apply for amalgamation at
a later stage. It is thus necessary to see what the High Court held in the case
of lalu Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in 2000 (3) Patna Law Journal
F Reports 357. Paragraphs 28 to 32 read as follows:

"28. The fact that separate cases have been registered and are
being investigated separately and also the fact that this.Court during
investigation while considering the question as to whether remand in
one case will mean the remand in all other cases, has held that some
G of the cases fo1111 different transactions, are not decisive to the question
involved in the case. This court made observations during the course
of investigation while deciding the question of remand only. The
separate investigation by itself is not decisive to the fact that all the
cases are separate. It is only after investigation that the question has
to be decided as to whether they are part of the same transaction or
H
LALU PRASAD@ LALU PRASAD .YADAV v. STATE rnROUGH CB.I. (A.H.0.) RANCffi, JHARKHAND (VARIAVA, J.l 039

not. Similarly, the fact that the accused persons in both the cases are A
not common is also not an important fact as even in the cases of
single transaction, different offences are committed by different set
of the accused persons. The relevant question that was to be considered
by the trial court was whether the series of the acts committed by the
accused persons forming different offences at different times and at B
different places were with a view to fulfill one common purpose and
there was a community of criminal intent so as to form a single
transaction or different offences were committed independently with
a view to fulfill different purpose or object though there was similarity
between the purpose and object in the cases. Even if the trial court
would have found that the offences alleged to have been committed c
did not form one transaction, it should have also considered the cases
of the petitioners in terms of proviso to section 223 of the Code
whether it was expedient in the ends of justice to hold a joint trial on
such prayer being made in writing by the accused persons and the
same was not causing any prejudice to any of the accused persons. D
The trial court has also not made any effort to find out as to what is
the view of the other accused persons facing the trial. For all these
reasons, the order passed by the trial court suffers from legal infirmity.

30. The next question is as to what order should be passed in this
case after having came to the conclusion that the order passed by the E
Special Judge suffers from legal infirmity. Whether the matter is to
be remanded for fresh consideration at this stage or some other
direction is to be given taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case.

31. During the course of argument and in the written argument
filed on behalf of one set of the accused, it was submitted on behalf F
of the petitioner that the offences committed in these two cases and
other cases are the part of the same transaction, but they have not
given the details of other cases. In other cases either charge-sheets
have been submitted or the same are still to be submitted. In that
circumstance, this question cannot be decided by taking into G
consideration the allegation made in these two cases only. If this
} question is decided only after taking into consideration the allegations
in these two cases then that matter will not come to an end as this
question will be re-agitated time and again by the petitioners and
other accused persons as and when the other cases will be ripe for H
l
I

1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A frami11g of the charges and the result would be that the trial will not
proceed in any case.

32. Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case arising out of the Animal Husbandry Scam, I am of the
r
view that the said question is to be decided only when other cases are
B also ready and reach the stage of framing of the charges. At that
stage, if a proper application is filed by the accused persons or by
some of the accused persons, the trial court will conside~ the said
question. While considering the question if some of the accused persons
have not prayed for joint trial, then the trial court will also consider
their stand in the light of the legal positions indicated above. The trial
c court will also consider whether it will be possible or practicable to
dispose of all the cases or some of the cases jointly or they should
be tried separately. It is to be clarified that the paramount consideration
should be the cause of justice."

D It is thus to be seen that the High Court has not concluded that there was a
single conspiracy. The High Court has correctly held that this question can
be decided only when the other cases are also ready and reach the stage of
framing of the charges. As has been indicated above all the cases have not
reached the stage of framing of the charges. Three of the cases are still at the
appearance stage. Two of the cases are at the stage of framing of charge.
E Thus in any case the application was premature. Moreover, the present attempt
is likely to result in delay in trial of Case No. 20(A)96-Patna which has
progressed considerably. The High Court has also correctly held that it is the
trial court which would have to consider the stand of other accused persons
who have not prayed for joint trial. It is to be seen that apart from the
F Appellants there are a large number of other accused persons. Most of the
other accused persons have not applied for joint trial. This Court does not
know what their stand is. When this was pointed out to Counsel for the
Appellants it was stated that affidavit of consent, for joint trial, by all the
accused in all the cases would be filed before this Court. In our view this is
not the stage where such affidavits could be filed. The consent had to be
G obtained before the application for amalgamation was made. It was for the
Special Judge to consider whether it was expedient and in interest of justice
that all accused persons, in all the cases, be tried jointly. It is neither expedient
nor proper that the Appellants be permitted to bypass the trial court in this
manner.

H There is another more important reason why these Appeals cannot be
LALU PRASAD@ LALU PRASAD YADAV •- STATE lliROUGH C.B.I. (A.H.D.) RANCHI. JHARKHAND [VARIAVA, lij Q4 }

allowed. This Court, in the case of CBI v. Bra) Bhushan Prasad reported in A
[200 I] 9 sec 432 considered the question whether these cases stood
' transferred to the State of Jharkhand by virtue of the Bihar Reorganisation
Act. Opposing a transfer it was submitted that the cases related to an alleged
single conspiracy which had taken place in Patna. It was submitted that the
trials thus had to continue in Patna. This Court considered what were the
main offences in those cases. Admittedly these 6 cases are part of the cases B
considered by this Court. Paragraphs 34 to 37 read as follows:

"34. What is the main offence in the charges involved in all these
36 cases? It is undisputed that the main offence is under Section
13(l)(C) and also Section 13(l)(d) of the PC Act. The first among C
them is described thus:

"13. (I) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct,-

* * *
D
· (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise
converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his
control as a public servant or allows any other persons so to do;"

The next offence is described like this:
E
"13. (I) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal
misconduct,-

* * *
(d) if he,-
F
(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any
other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself
or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
G
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any
person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public
interest;"

35. We have no doubt in our mind that the hub of the act envisaged
in the first of those two offences is "dishonestly or fraudulently H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003} SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A misappropriates". Similarly the hinge of the act envisaged in the second
section is "obtains" for himself or for any other person, any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means.

36. The above acts were completed in the present cases when the
money has gone out of the public treasuries and reached the hands of
B any one of the persons involved. Hence, so far as the offences under
Section l3(l)(c) and Section 13(l)(d) are concerned the place where
the offences were committed could easily be identified as the place
where the treasury concerned was sHuated. It is an undisputed fact
that in all these cases the treasuries were situated within the territories
of Jharkhand State.
c
37. Thus, when it is certain where exactly the offence under Section
13 of the PC Act was committed it is an unnecessary exercise to
ponder over the other areas wherein certain allied activities, such as
conspiracy or preparation, or even the prefatory or incidental acts
were done, including the consequences that ensued."
D
Thus it has already been held, by a three Judge bench of this Court, that the
main offences were under the Prevention of Corruption. Act. It has been held
)
that the offence of conspiracy is an allied offence to the main offence under I
the Prevention of Corruption Act. The cases are before the Special Judges
E because the main offences are under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The
main offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act in each case is in
respect of the alleged transaction in that case. As conspiracy is only an allied
offence it cannot be said that the alleged overt acts are in the course of the
same transaction. We are bound by this decision. In any case we see no
reason to take a different view. As it has already been held that the charge
F of conspiracy is only an allied charge and that the main charges (under the
Prevention of Corruption Act) are in respect of separate and distinct acts i.e.
monies siphoned out of different Treasuries at different times, we fail to see
as to how these cases could be amalgamated.

At this stage it must be mentioned that Dr Jagannath Mishra had merely
G applied for transfer of all the cases to one Court. His application was thus
under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We are informed that all
the Special Courts in Jharkhand are housed in one building. We see no .
infirmity in the reasoning given, in the impugned Judgment dated 6th August'
2002, that the cases cannot be transferred to one Court as at present all the
H Courts are functioning smoothly and fairly and the cases are being disposed<. .
LAW PRASAD@ LAW PRASAD YADAV v. STATE TilROUGH CB.I. (A.H.D.) RANCIH, !HAR.KHANO [VARIAV A. J.ij 04 J

of very expeditiously. We are also in agreement with the observation that A
transfer to one Court may prejudicially affect other accused persons. Thus
even if we had been inclined to allow the other Appeals, which we are not,
the Appeal filed by Dr. Jagannath Mishra would have had to be dismissed.

For all the above reasons we see no reason to interfere. All the Appeals
stand dismissed. B
Before we part it must be mentioned that it had been complained that
the Appellants would be forced to hear the same evidence 5/6 times. If the
Appellants or any of them feel aggrieved by this and if they so desire they
may apply to the Special Judges that evidence recorded in one case and
documents marked as an exhibit in one case be used as evidence in other C
cases also. This would obviate their having to hear the same evidence in 5/
6 different cases. We are sure that if such an application is made the same
will be considered by the Special Judge on its merit, after hearing all the
other accused.
D
S.K.S. Appeals dismissed.