SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Nar Singh Patidar - Appellant
Versus
Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment & Ors – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. ……… Of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO. 2235 of 2024)
Decided On : 03-12-2024
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was working as a Panchayat Secretary to the Gram Panchayat. There are 47 cases registered against the appellant in the form of FIRs under sections 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code alongwith 6section 13(l)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution alleges that during his tenure as Secretary of the particular Gram Panchayat he was involved in 47 cases, along with other officials & elected representatives in Panchayat, of wrongly giving plots of land to ineligible persons who were not even residents of the village.
3. The trial has to take place before a Special Judge, Special Court (P.C. Act), Mandsaur (Madhya Pradesh). By now, in most of the cases, chargesheets have already been filed. The appellant had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh praying therein to consolidate and club all the 46 FIRs with the first FIR No.311/2015 registered at P.S. Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta Office, Ujjain and there be a single trial as the multiplicity of trial is to the detriment of both prosecution as well as the defence. The High Court though did not agree with this prayer and writ petition has been dismissed.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant at bar before this Court has relied upon the provisions of 219 to 223 of Cr.P.C. and would argue that in such a case there has to be a single trial or at the best there has to be two trials for the reason that there were two Resolutions but there cannot be 47 different cases for the appellant to face. Section 219 and Section 223 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:
(1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three.
(2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or of any special or local laws :
Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under Section 380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such attempt is an offence.
Section 223. What persons may be charged jointly. - The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely –
(a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction;
(b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence;
(c) persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the meaning of Section 219 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months;
(d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction;
(e) persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion, cheating, criminal misappropriation, and persons accused of receiving or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such offence committed by the first-named persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such lastnamed offence;
(f) persons accused of offences under Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or either of those sections in respect of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence;
(g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the
The trial court has the discretion to determine whether to conduct joint trials for multiple FIRs based on the specifics of each case.
Offences arising from the same transaction may be tried together under the Criminal Procedure Code; separate trials are not required unless distinct offences are established.
The court ruled that trials may be conducted together under Section 223 Cr.P.C. but should remain separate if the accused differ between a police report and a complaint case, to avoid prejudice.
Cross-cases arising from similar incidents should be tried simultaneously to prevent conflicting judgments, and the POCSO Court can adjudicate related offences under different statutes.
Consolidation of criminal cases based on similarity of charges and common witnesses is permissible under Section 223 of the Cr.P.C.
The court emphasized the need to consider whether conducting a joint/separate trial would prejudice the defence of the accused or cause judicial delay, and highlighted the importance of examining com....
Consolidation of charges and a single trial can be ordered for cases involving similar offences, a common accused, and a common transaction, as per Section 223(d) of Cr.P.C.
Joint trials are acceptable for closely related offences, but accused must demonstrate prejudice due to any procedural irregularities for a trial to be invalidated.
(1) Joint trial is a matter of judicial discretion – Joint or separate trial must ordinarily be taken at outset of proceedings and for cogent reasons.(2) Mere discovery of error, irregularity or omis....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.