IMPORTANT POINT
The right of the prosecution to decide to whom and how to prosecute, and the discretion of the court in ordering a joint trial based on the interest of justice and prevention of miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

I.A No. 6024 of 2023

This interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of one day in preferring the present Criminal Appeal.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also after going through the cause shown in this interlocutory application seeking condonation of delay, I.A No. 6024 of 2023 is hereby allowed and delay in preferring the Criminal Appeal is condoned.

Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1012 of 2023

3. Munesh Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram @ Pradeep Verma, Bhikhan Ganjhu @ Deepak Kumar and Anischay Ganjhu are aggrieved by the order dated 19th May 2023 passed on their application filed under section 211 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 848 of 2023.

4. In a nutshell, the stand of the above-named accused who are the appellants is that the charge framed against them is required to be modified taking into consideration first supplementary chargesheet dated 21st December 2018 and second supplementary chargesheet dated 10th January 2020 and thereafter the trial shall commence afresh.

5. Misc. Criminal Application No. 848 of 2023 has been dismissed by the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi on the ground that as many as 88 witnesses were already examined in RC Case No. 06/2018/NIA/DLI and for the following reasons:

“ … It is pertinent to mention here that investigation of this case is still continued under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C accused Binod Ganjhu, Munesh Ganjhu, Anischay Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram, Binod Ganjhu, Birbal Ganjhu, Laxman Ji @ Akraman Ji, Subhan Miyan and Sudhanshu Ranjan @ Chhotu were charge sheeted firstly in which A-8 Sudhanshu Ranjan @ Chhotu was made approver under section 306 of the Cr.P.C later on charge was framed against accused Ajit Thakur A-10 and Bhikhan Ganjhu separately and their case record started moving separately. Seeing the voluminous number of the chargesheet witnesses which is about 185 in number on the request of learned counsel of Ajit Thakur, Bhikhan Ganjhu and others their case was amalgamated in original case record vide order dated 18.1.2023, when the case record was amalgamated total witnesses were examined in both the case record except informant of this case namely Ramdhari Singh whose examination in chief was recorded in the original case record. But without cross-examination he died during Covid period and after that case record of Spl NIA 10003/2018 and original record 3/2018 is running together and altogether about 85 witnesses have been examined.

…………

It further appears that petitioners have filed this petition under chapter XVII section 211 of Cr.P.C and prayed to try accused persons of the second supplementary chargesheet with accused persons of the first supplementary chargesheet which is not possible as First supplementary chargesheet was filed by the NIA on dated 21.12.2018. Accordingly, charge was framed against petitioner nos.1 to 9 and 15 on 23.8.2019. On the other hand accused persons of the first chargesheet A-10, A-11, A-12 and A-16 charge was framed on 3.12.2021 and secondary supplementary chargesheet was filed before the court on 10.1.2020. In second supplementary chargesheet cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial commissioner cum special Judge NIA on 13.01.2020 against which accused persons Vinit Agarwal, Amit Agarwal and Mahesh Agarwal were preferred Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 71/2020, 117/2020 and 119/2020 before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in which Hon’ble High Court has been pleased to pass order of the no coercive step against accused persons of the secondary supplementary chargesheet which was vacated on 18.1.2022. Thereafter, one by one accused persons of the second supplementary chargesheet appeared on case record. Their separate police papers were supplied to them. They preferred separate discharge petitions in view of the discharge petitions hearing has been completed and discharge petition of the