The main legal point established in the judgment is that the admissibility of evidence under Section 512 Cr. P.C. and the provisions of the Evidence Act related to examination and cross-examination of witnesses are crucial in determining the conduct of joint trials and the rights of the accused.

This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 25th April, 2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ramban in case titled State versus Sonaullah Naik and others, bearing FIR No. 65/1998 of Police Station Ramban, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-accused for joint trial has been rejected, hereinafter for short as impugned order.

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

2. Police Station Ramban conducted investigation in case FIR No. 65/1998 and after completion of said investiga­tion, Challan in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short as Code, was presented against accused No. 1 to 7. At the time when challan was presented and thereafter when case was committed to Sessions Court, Ramban, only accused No. 3 to 7 were present and against accused No. 1 and 2, because of having been re­ported absconding, proceedings under section 512 of the Code were drawn.

3. Trial Court viz. Sessions Court, Ramban framed charge against the accused 3 to 7 who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the pendency of the trial, petitioner-accused No. 1 appeared be­fore the trial court on 15th December, 2011, was charge-sheeted vide order dated 3rd March, 2012 and prosecution was directed to lead evidence.

5. The petitioner-accused moved an application with the averments that the evidence already on record be read against him and he is giving up the right of cross-examination. Therefore, his trial be conducted along with ac­cused No. 3 to 7.

6. Trial court, after consideration, dismissed the application vide im­pugned order and directed that sepa­rate trial be conducted against the ac­cused No. 1 on the ground that all wit­nesses have to be called afresh during the trial of accused No. 1, petitioner.

7. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner questions the impugned order by the medium of present petition; which states that impugned order is illegal and trial court cannot put petitioner to separate trial; that petitioner has given up his right to cross-examination and submits that the evidence already re­corded be read against him. Petitioner has prayed that impugned order, being bad, be set-aside and trial court be di­rected to conduct trial of petitioner-ac­cused No. 1 along with accused 3 to 7 without calling the witnesses, already examined by the prosecution, for cross examination.

8. I have gone through the impugned order and perusal whereof makes a room for consideration, a question, as to whether the trial court was within its powers to direct for separate trial and ask the prosecution to examine all the witnesses afresh so far it relates to petitioner, accused No. 1?

9. To have the question answered, the principles and concept of the Sec­tion 512 Cr. P.C. in the first instance need to be emphasized, therefore, Sec­tion 512 Cr. P.C. may be reproduced thus:-

"512. Record of evidence in ab­sence of accused—.

(1) If it is proved that an accused per­son has absconded, and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, the Court competent to try or com­mit for trial such person for the of­fence complained of may, is his ab­sence, examine the witnesses (if any) produced on behalf of the prosecution, and record their depositions. Any such deposition may, on the arrest of such person, be given in evidence against him on the enquiry into, or trial for, the offence with which he is charged, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or his attendance cannot be procured without any amount of delay, expense or inconve­nience which, under the circumstances of the case, would be unrea­sonable.

(2) Record of evidence when offender unknown,- If it appears that an of­fence punishable with death or im­prisonment for life has been commit­ted by some person or persons un­known, the High Court may direct that any (judicial Magistrate) of the first class shall hold an inquiry and ex­amine any witnesses who can give evidence concerning the offence. Any depositions so taken may be given in evidence against any person