Judgment

SEN, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against an order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated May 9, 1984 upholding with certain modifications the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala dated April 24, 1984 directing that the two sessions trials be consolidated and clubbed together, and the evidence recorded in one case be read as evidence in the other.

2. The short point involved in this appeal is whether under S. 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 it is permissible for the Court to club and consolidate the case on a police challan and the case on a complaint where the prosecution versions in the police challan case and the complaint case are materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive. The question is whether the Court should in the facts and circumstances of the case direct that the two cases should be tried together but not consolidated i.e. the evidence be recorded separately in both cases and they may be disposed of simultaneously except to the extent that the witnesses for the prosecution which are common to both may be examined in one case and their evidence be read as evidence in the other.

3. Shortly stated, the facts are these. On the night intervening April 24/25, 1983, an occurrence took place at village Bhadaur in district Sangrur in which the nine respondents before us respondents Nos. 2 to 10 are alleged to have committed the murder of as many as five persons belonging to the complainants party, three of whom died of gunshot injuries and two as a result of injuries inflicted by sharp-edged weapons. According to the post-mortem report, the deceased Nachattar Singh had been hacked to death and his head was severed. During the occurrence the complainant Harjinder Singh also received gunshot injuries. The first information report was lodged by one Chanan Singh, Head Constable, Police Station Bhadaur. After investigation the police put up a challan against the three respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Karnail Singh, Mohinder Singh and Gurcharan Singh and they have been committed to stand their trial in the Court of Session at Barnala for having committed offences punishable under Ss. 302, 307, 342 and 440, all read with Ss. 149, 148 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Ss. 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

4. During the investigation, the complainant Harjinder Singh and seven others were arrested by the police for having committed alleged offences under S. 307 etc. of the Indian Penal Code but they were released on bail by the High Court on May 31, 1983. The police put up a challan in Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Barnala against nineteen persons belonging to the complainants side. On the basis of the challan they have also been committed to stand their trial before the Court of Session, but we are not concerned with that trial in this appeal.

5. Upon being released by the police and after collecting the relevant material, a complaint was lodged by the appellant in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate against the nine respondents before us i.e. respondents Nos. 2 to 10. In the meantime, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had fixed the case put up by the prosecution The State v. Karnail Singh for recording of evidence. Apprehending that the complaint case filed by the appellant would not be committed until the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded, the appellant moved the High Court under S. 482 of the Code with a prayer that the trial of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4, Karnail Singh, Mohinder Singh and Gurcharan Singh be stayed till the complaint filed by him against them and six others was processed by the learned Magistrate and they were committed. On February 14, 1984 the High Court directed that the commitment proceedings be expedited. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate by his order dated March 30, 1984 committed all the nine accused to the Court of Session and sent them for trial to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge