2006 Supreme(SC) 607

2006(5) Supreme 458
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
Ashok Bhan and Markandey Katju, JJ.
State of Karnataka — Appellant
versus
Annegowda — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 2006
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5153 of 2004)
Decided on 13-7-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocate.
For the Respondent : E.C. Vidya Sagar, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
Proviso to Section 242 Cr.P.C. permits the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until other witness or witnesses have been examined and it does not deal with clubbing of cases or simultaneous trial of different cases registered against accused.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 242 — Respondent-accused was charged-sheeted for offences u/s 409, 467, 468, 471(a) IPC in eleven cases involving misappropriation of Bank money by bank officials during the period from 1-7-1981 to 4-10-1991 — Trial in one case concluded and reached the stage to record examination of accused — Respondent accused’s prayer to defer recording of his statement till other 10 cases reached the stage of statement of accused allowed by High Court in exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. accepting respondent’s plea that he would be forced to reveal his defence and that would enable prosecution to cover up lacunae in other cases — Appeal — Section 242 Cr.P.C. did not deal with either clubbing of cases registered against accused or simultaneous trial of different cases registered against accused — Contention that accused would be prejudiced in trial of other cases was without basis and foundation — High Court materially erred in its conclusions.

       Held : Section 242 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the recording of evidence of prosecution. Clause (1) of the Section provides that if the accused refuses to plead or does not plead, or claims to be tried or the Magistrate does not convict the accused under Section 241 the Magistrate shall fix a date for the examination of witnesses. The Magistrate is authorised under Clause (2) to issue a summons to any of the witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing and under Clause (3) on the date fixed the Magistrate is enjoyed upon to take all such evidence as may be produced in its support by the prosecution. Proviso permits the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination. It does not deal with either the clubbing of cases registered against the accused or simultaneous trial of different cases registered against an accused. On an earlier occasion the respondent had filed an application under Section 312 read with Section 219 Cr.P.C. in this case seeking a direction to club CC No. 8165 of 1994 with this case and to hold a common trial. The said application came to be rejected by the Magistrate on 4.7.1994. Against the said order the respondent filed a Criminal Revision Petition No. 75 of 1995 before the XXIII, Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, who heard the matter and dismissed the same by its judgment and order dated 15.7.1995. It was held that there was no reason to club the matter and to hold a common trial.(Para 7)

       The apprehension of the respondent-accused that if his statement is recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he would be required to divulge his defence and in that event he would be prejudiced in the trial of other cases filed against him is without any basis and foundation. It may be taken note of that in as many as 25 witnesses have already been examined and the witnesses have already been cross-examined by the advocate for the accused. It is reasonable to infer that during the course of his cross-examination the accused-respondent must have disclosed his defence. The statement on behalf of the accused that he is required to divulge his defence only during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted. The charges in other cases against the accused may be under the same provisions of Indian Penal Code and may also be similar but documentary or oral evidence may be different which ultimately has to be appreciated and evaluated by the Court separately in each case. It can be taken judicial note and kept in mind that completion of trial in other ten charge sheets may take some more time. The High Court has materially erred in coming to the conclusion that under the provisions of Section 242 Cr.P.C. recording of statement of accused-respondent under Section 313 could be deferred till the trial in other cases involving similar transactions against the accused is completed.(Para 8)