Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs State of Punjab

Q: Key Points

Yes, judgment can be pronounced against the present accused even if there are two accused who merit conviction, one of whom is mafrur (absconding). The trial against the present accused can proceed to conclusion, including pronouncement of judgment of conviction and sentence, while the proceedings against the mafrur accused are split up (bifurcated) and kept pending until their presence is secured. This is expressly permitted to avoid undue delay under the proviso to Section 353(6) CrPC, which allows the court to pronounce judgment notwithstanding the absence of one or more accused when there are multiple accused. The main trial against the available accused concludes upon imposition of sentence, independent of the bifurcated proceedings against the absconding accused. (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000765960003] (!) (!) (!) (!)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1214

S. ABDUL NAZEER, B. R. GAVAI, A. S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Sukhpal Singh Khaira – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. in Crl.A.885/2019 Mr. Sudhir Walia,Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Mr. Arpit Sharma, Adv. Ms. Harshika Verma, Adv. Mr. Gauravjit Singh Patwalia, Adv. Mr. Ajit Singh Johar, Adv. Mr. Harshit Sethi,Adv. Mr. Mehtab Singh Khaira,Adv.
In Crl.A.886/2019 Mr. Harshit Sethi,Adv. Mr. Amit K. Nain, AOR
In SLP 6960/2021 Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, AOR Mr. Simren Jeet,Adv.
In SLP 5933/2019 Mr. Chinmoy Khaladkar, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Salonee Paranjape, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv. Mr. B. K. Pal, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Adv./Advocate General Mr. Aman Pal, Addl.A.G Mr. Gaurav Dhama, Addl.A.G. Ms. Kanika Ahuja, Adv. Ms. Kirti Ahuja, Adv. Ms. Priyanka C., Adv. Mr. Mayank Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Mahima Dogra, adv. Ms. Bhupinder, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv. Mr. S.V.Raju,ASG Ms. Sairica Raju,Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh,Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Zoheb Hussain,Adv. Mr. Kanu Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Anirudh Bhat,Adv. Mr. Adit Khorana,Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra,Adv. Mr. Udai Khanna,Adv. Mr. Ankit Bhatia,Adv. Ms. Madhumitha,Adv. Mr. Anshuman Singh,Adv. Mr. Harsh Paul Singh,Adv. Mr. Hitharth Raja,Adv. Mr. Garvil Singh,Adv. Ms. Nandini,Adv. Mr. Ardhendumouli Kumar Prasad,AAG Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad,Adv. Mr. Ashish Madaan,Adv. Mr. Vinay Rajput,Adv. Mr. Saurabh Mishra,AAG Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava,Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR
For the Intervenor(s) : Mr. Ashish Dixit,Adv. Mr. Ravi Sharma, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Yes, judgment can be pronounced against the present accused even if there are two accused who merit conviction, one of whom is mafrur (absconding).

The trial against the present accused can proceed to conclusion, including pronouncement of judgment of conviction and sentence, while the proceedings against the mafrur accused are split up (bifurcated) and kept pending until their presence is secured. This is expressly permitted to avoid undue delay under the proviso to Section 353(6) CrPC, which allows the court to pronounce judgment notwithstanding the absence of one or more accused when there are multiple accused. The main trial against the available accused concludes upon imposition of sentence, independent of the bifurcated proceedings against the absconding accused.

(!) (!) (!) (!) [1000765960003] (!) (!) (!) (!)

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Bopanna, J.

1. In the above appeal, the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Revision No.4070 of 2017 and Criminal Revision No.4113 of 2017 are assailed. Through the said order, the High Court has dismissed the Criminal Revision Petitions and upheld the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the Trial Court summoning the appellant as an additional accused by exercising the power under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’ for short). For the purpose of narration of facts the case in Criminal Appeal No.885 of 2019 is noted.

2. The position which led to the appellant being summoned is that on 05.03.2015 a First Information Report was lodged in the Police Station Sadar, Jalalabad against 11 accused for the offence under Sections 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (‘NDPS’ for short), Section 25-A of Arms Act and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’ for short). In the charge sheet dated 06.09.2015, 10 accused were summoned and put to trial in Sessions Case No. 289 of 2015. Though the second charge sheet was filed by the police, the same did not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 1214

S. ABDUL NAZEER, B. R. GAVAI, A. S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, B. V. NAGARATHNASukhpal Singh Khaira – AppellantVersusState of Punjab – Respondent

Cases Referred (5)

S. ABDUL NAZEER, B. R. GAVAI, A. S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, B. V. NAGARATHNA
Sukhpal Singh Khaira – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent