The Supreme Court clarified that a Sessions Court retains full power to order a joint trial even when accused persons were committed to it through separate committal orders. The committal order governs only the transfer of the case from the Magistrate to the Sessions Court — it does not control the trial's structure. The Sessions Judge independently decides, under CrPC Section 223, whether accused persons should be tried jointly or separately, regardless of how they arrived before the court.

This ruling resolves a procedural confusion that arose in multi-accused cases. When co-accused are charged at different times or through different FIRs, Magistrates may commit them to the Sessions Court through separate orders. A question arose: does each separate committal order lock the Sessions Court into holding separate trials?

The Supreme Court said no. The committal order under CrPC Section 209 is a jurisdictional instrument — it moves the case from the Magistrate (who lacks competence to try sessions-triable offences) to the Sessions Court. Its purpose is jurisdictional transfer, not trial architecture.

Once the Sessions Court receives the cases, it exercises its own independent discretion under CrPC Section 223, which governs joint trials. Section 223 permits persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction to be tried jointly. The Sessions Judge must apply Section 223's criteria — not count committal orders — to decide the trial structure.

This distinction matters enormously in practice. Joint trials prevent contradictory verdicts, reduce witness harassment, and save judicial time. Accused persons cannot weaponise procedural irregularities in committal to fragment a trial that is factually unified. The BNSS equivalent provisions (Sections 232 and 269) carry the same structural logic under the new code.