Back
2003 Supreme(Del) 701
High Court Of Delhi
JITENDER NAROTTAM DAS MEHROTRA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Decided On : 08/05/2003
The central legal point established in the judgment is that it is not permissible to create multiple stages of proceedings in one trial, and persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction are to be charged and tried together as prescribed in Section 223 of Cr. P. C.
Headnote:
Trial Splitting - Criminal Procedure - Section 223 of Cr. P. C. - The judgment discusses the legality of splitting a trial in a complaint case or a case filed on a police report, and the court's ability to create multiple stages in one trial. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prescribes that persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction are to be charged and tried together. The judgment highlights the distinction between procedures in summons and warrant cases and emphasizes that it is not permissible to create multiple stages of proceedings in one trial.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint filed under Sections 138/132/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to the dishonour of a cheque issued by a company, with ten accused persons including the petitioner and co-accused who were Chairman, Managing Director, and Directors of the company.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that splitting the trial against some accused and simultaneously continuing with the proceedings to procure the presence of remaining accused was neither legally permissible nor conducive to a fair trial. The impugned order was set aside, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was directed to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law by serving notice under Section 251 Cr. P. C. upon all the accused persons and try them together.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of splitting a trial, the interpretation of Section 223 of Cr. P. C., and the procedural requirements for summon and warrant cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 223 of Cr. P. C., which prescribes that persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction are to be charged and tried together. The judgment emphasized that it is not permissible to create multiple stages of proceedings in one trial.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was directed to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law by way of serving notice under Section 251 Cr. P. C. upon all the accused persons and try them together.
( 1 ) BOTH the above petition nos. Crl. M (M) 3168/2003 and Crl. M (M) 3171/2003 stand disposed of by the following common order as not only the parties are common, but the question of law and facts involved therein are identical.
( 2 ) SHORT question involved for determination is whether in a complaint case or for that purpose in a case filed on the police report, Court can split the trial in respect of those accused persons who are appearing before the Court and simultaneously continue the proceedings against those whose presence is still being procured through some process or the other. In other words can the court create multiple stages in one trial.
( 3 ) IMPUGNED order dated 2nd June, 2003 passed by Sh. S. N. Dhingra, Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi has been challenged as to the mode of trial adopted by the learned ASJ, as out of as many as ten accused persons, notice of offence was given to three of them and after they entered into the plea of not guilty, the learned Additional Sessions Judge fixed the case for complainant s evidence against these persons and at the same time listed the matter for the appearance of the remaining accused including the petitioner.
( 4 ) IMPUGNED order has been assailed on the following premises:-
(I) That it is against the provision of Section 223 Cr. P. C. , according to which persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of same transaction are to be charged and tried together;
(II) It is violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India in as much as petitioners were forced by the Court to disclose their defence which they did by way of written defence and thereby the court not only provided an opportunity to the complainant to modify or adjust their case by filling up the lacuna but also compelled the accused to be witness against him which is prohibited by Article 20.
(III) It is for the complainant or the prosecution to prove the case against the accused and not for the accused persons to first come out with their defence.
( 5 ) PROCEDURE for stating substance of accusation to the accused in a summons case is laid down in Section 251 Cr. P. C. whereas the procedure for framing charge in a warrant case is provided in Section 240 Cr. P. C. Both these provisions need to be reproduced to discern the distinction between the procedures in a summons case and a warrant case. Section 251 Cr. P. C. is as under:-
"251. Substance of accusation to be stated.- When in a summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. "
( 6 ) SECTION 240 provides as under:
"240. Framing of charge.- (1) If, upon such consideration examination, if any, and hearing, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. "
( 7 ) BARE perusal of these provisions shows that after stating the particulars of the offence in a summons case the court shall first ask him whether he pleads guilty and in case the accused does not, he shall then be asked what defence he has to make. It is only in a warrant case where the charge is framed that the accused is asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. Expression "claims to be tried" impliedly means that the accused pleads not guilty and therefore claims to be tried. In that case the Magistrate cannot ask the accuse to what defence he has to make. This distinction is because of summon cases being ordin
