Disadvanges and spliting of the case against the accused
padmavathi
(Querist) 18 November 2012
This query is : Resolved
Respected experts,
I will be thank full to you all , if you can tell me
Supreme court AIR 1987 VOL PAGE NO 2104, ,CAN ANY ONE GET ME citation on that
Thanking to all,
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 18 November 2012
Here it is-
PETITIONER:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NARSA REDDY
DATE OF JUDGMENT14/08/1987
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
RAY, B.C. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 2104 1987 SCR (3) 968
1987 SCC (4) 170 JT 1987 (3) 382
1987 SCALE (2)337
CITATOR INFO :
R 1989 SC 129 (10)
ACT:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973--s.482--Inherent Powers
of High Court--Power cannot be exercised so as to split
trial of accused which is apt to cause miscarriage of jus-
tice and serious prejudice to prosecution.
HEADNOTE:
While the respondent, alongwith another person, was
being tried under ss. 302 and 201 read with s. 34 I.P.C.,
etc., for causing the death of his wife, the evidence re-
corded revealed the involvement of two police officials in
the disposal of the dead body, and, they were also charged
under s. 201 read with s. 34 I.P.C. and the trial was or-
dered to be held de novo against all the four accused.
However, the trial could not proceed as the two police
officials whose plea that, being public servants, it was
necessary to obtain a sanction for prosecution under s. 197
Cr. P.C. for impleading them as accused, was rejected,
approached the High Court in Revision and obtained stay of
the trial. The respondent applied for bail under s. 439(1),
Cr. P.C. contending that the trial was unduly protracted,
and on its rejection, approached the High Court in Revision.
A Single Judge of the High Court rejected the application
for bail, vacated the stay granted by the High Court earlier
insofar as the respondent and the other person who was
originally accused with him was concerned and directed the
Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial as against them
only.
Allowing the appeal, and, directing continuance of stay
of the trial till the disposal of the Revision filed by the
two police officials,
HELD: It is somewhat strange that the learned Single
Judge should have made a direction at all requiring the
learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial as against
the respondent and the other accused merely because there
was stay granted by the High Court in the Revision preferred
by the two police officials. If he felt that the stay would
prejudicially affect the respondent and the other accused
and subject them to a protracted trial, the proper course
was to have heard and disposed of the Revision filed by the
two police officials rather than make a direction of this
kind which would, result in the splitting up of the trial
and is apt to cause miscarriage of justice, besides serious
pre-
969
judice to the prosecution. From the nature of the prosecu-
tion case, it is quite apparent that the evidence to be led
by the prosecution would be more or less common as it re-
lates to the same occurrence. It could not be said that
merely because the proceedings were held up due to stay
granted by the High Court the learned Single Judge could
have taken recourse to the inherent powers of the High Court
under s. 482, Cr. P.C., or that it was necessary to do so
either to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise
to secure ends of justice. [971C-F]
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 361
of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3. 1986 of the
Karnataka High Court in Crl. P.C. No. 69 of 1986.
P.R. Ramasesh, Adv. for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN, J. The question involved in this appeal by special
leave is whether the High Court of Karnataka was justified
in directing the Sessions Judge, Bidar to proceed with the
trial of Sessions Case No. 23 of 1984 insofar as it relates
to the respondent Narsa Reddy and one Vaijinath, accused No.
2, arraigned for having committed alleged offences punisha-
ble under ss. 302 and 201 both read with s. 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961.
While issuing notice, we were not satisfied about the
legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned
Single Judge which had the effect of splitting up of the
trial although the prosecution case against the accused
arose out of the same incident and the evidence to be led by
the prosecution against them was more or less common. It
also seemed to us that if the order passed by the learned
Single Judge were to be implemented, the learned Sessions
Judge would be constrained to proceed against the respondent
and accused No. 2 Vaijinath and thereby the very object of
directing de novo trial would be frustrated. At the hearing,
no one appeared for the respondent and therefore we did not
have the benefit of hearing his counsel.
The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows. On Febru-
ary 14, 1984, at about 7 p.m., the respondent Narsa Reddy
pushed his wife the deceased Jagdamba into a well situate in
his garden to cause her death and he then with the help of
accused No. 2, Vaijinath pulled her out of
970
the well and brought her to the house of the respondent
where he assaulted her with a stick and thereafter strangu-
lated her to death. After the committal, the Sessions case
was posted for evidence and evidence of four witnesses was
recorded. The testimony of PW 3 Sangareddy and PW 4 Ran-
gareddy revealed the involvement of Head Constable Govinda
Rao and Police Constable John, who were cited as prosecution
witnesses, in the disposal of the dead body of the deceased,
that they had also committed the offence under s. 20 1 read
with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with the other two
accused. An application was accordingly filed by the learned
Public Prosecutor under s. 319(4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure for impleading Head Constable Govinda Rao and
Police Constable John as accused Nos. 3 and 4 in the Ses-
sions case. On the said application, the learned Sessions
Judge by his order dated August 22, 1985 ordered that Head
Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John be impleaded
as accused Nos. 3 and 4 for the offence under s. 201 read
with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He also ordered that a
de novo trial would be held against the accused persons
after reframing charges. Before the trial could proceed
further, the newly impleaded accused Nos. 3 and 4 filed an
application before the learned Sessions Judge contending
that they could not be impleaded as accused and that since
they were public servants, sanction under s. 197 of the Code
was required for their prosecution. The application of
accused Nos. 3 and 4 was rejected by the learned Sessions
Judge on October 28, 1985. Thereupon, Head Constable Govinda
Rao and Police Constable John, impleaded as accused Nos. 3
and 4, preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 886
of 1985 before the High Court. The High Court has admitted
the revision and granted stay of proceedings in the Sessions
case. In the meanwhile, the respondent Narsa Reddy who had
been arrayed as accused No. 1 made an application for bail
under s. 439(1) before the learned Sessions Judge contending
that in view of the stay order granted by the High Court in
Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985, the trial of the Sessions
case was unduly protracted and hence he should be released
on bail, apart from the ground that no prima facie case has
been made out against him.
The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated September
25, 1985 rejected the application on the ground that earlier
similar applications for bail were rejected both by him as
well as the High Court and it could not be said that the
trial was protracted, merely because of stay granted by the
High Court, observing that the case was likely to be con-
cluded at an early date. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred
a revision before the High Court. The learned Single Judge
by his order
971
dated March 28, 1985 rejected the application for bail under
s. 439( 1 ) of the Code, vacated the stay granted by the
High Court in Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985 insofar as
the trial against the respondent and the aforesaid Vaiji-
nath, accused No. 2 was concerned and directed the learned
Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial against them as
early as possible. Hence this appeal by special leave.
We have no manner of doubt that the direction made by
the learned Single Judge presumably exercising the inherent
powers of the High Court under s. 482 of the Code of Crimi-
nal Procedure was wholly unwarranted. It is somewhat strange
that the learned Single Judge should have made a direction
at all requiring the learned Sessions Judge to proceed with
the trial as against the respondent and accused No. 2,
Vaijinath merely because there was stay granted by the High
Court in revision preferred by the co-accused Head Constable
Govinda Rao and Police Constable John, accused Nos. 3 and 4
against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated
October 28, 1985 rejecting the objection as to the validity
of trial for want of sanction. If he felt that the grant of
stay would prejudicially affect the respondent and accused
No. 2, Vaijinath and subject them to a protracted trial, the
proper course for the learned Single Judge was to have heard
and disposed of the Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985 rather
than make a direction of this kind which would, in fact,
result in splitting up of the trial which is apt to cause
miscarriage of justice, besides serious prejudice to the
prosecution. From the nature of the prosecution case, it is
quite apparent that the evidence to be led by the prosecu-
tion would be more or less common as it relates to the same
occurrence. It could not be said that merely because the
proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge were held up
due to stay granted by the High Court in that revision, the
learned Single Judge could have taken recourse to the inher-
ent powers of the High Court under s. 482 of the Code, or
that it was necessary to do so either to prevent abuse of
the process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
Any further delay in the trial could be prevented by taking
up the revision for hearing.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The
order passed by the High Court is set aside and the High
Court is directed to hear and dispose of Criminal Revision
No. 886 of 1985 as early as possible. In the meanwhile, the
proceedings in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1984 before the
learned Sessions Judge shall remain stayed till the disposal
of the revision.
H.L.C. Appeal
allowed.
972
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 22 November 2012
I think your query might have been satisfied now.
