Back
1990 Supreme(P&H) 23
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S. Grewal, J.
Kartar Singh - Petitiorter
Versus
State of Haryana and ors. - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 1094 of 1989.
Decided On : 12 January, 1990
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Trial Procedure
Headnote
Procedure - Criminal Law - Consolidation of Cases
Fact of the Case:
The Additional Sessions Judge adopted a novel procedure by bifurcating a case involving multiple accused and sending part of it back to the lower court, based on the ground that a related case was pending there.
Finding of the Court:
The court modified the order, directing the Additional Sessions Judge to try the entire case against all the accused and the Judicial Magistrate to commit the related case to the Court of Session for consolidation and joint disposal.
Issues: Consolidation of cases, bifurcation of cases, trial procedure
Ratio Decidendi: In cases involving the same occurrence and multiple accused, it is desirable to consolidate and dispose of the cases together to avoid separate trials.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order was modified to consolidate and try the entire case against all the accused together.
For the Petitioner:Mr. B.S. Randhawa, Advocate.
For the Respondents: None.
ORDER
S.S. Grewal, J. - Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, vide impugned order dated 17th November 1989 has adopted a novel procedure with regard to the commission of offences in the same occurrence. Charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code has been framed against Darshan Singh and Swaran Singh accused whereas instead of trying the entire case together, the case of other three accused, namely, Banta Singh, Sardul Singh and Milkha Singh was bifurcated and sent back to the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa on the ground that the said case under Sections 326/324/323/34 Indian Penal Code was pending in the very Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sirsa.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated at the bar that in the case which has been committed initially, cognizance had been taken on the basis of complaint filed by the opposite party. However, according to him, both these cases relate to the same occurrence. In these circumstances mere fact that Judicial Magistrate Ist Class has refused to commit the said case against Banta Singh, Sardul Singh and Milkha Singh would not afford any good ground for the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa to send back the case of the said accused. Rather in such a case it would be desirable that Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa commits the said case with regard to the aforesaid three accused to the Court of Session so that both the complaint as well as the State case can be clubbed together and disposed of by one trial instead of having recourse to two separate trials.
3. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa dated 17th November, 1989 is modified to the extent that he would try the entire case against all the five accused including Banta Singh, Sardul Singh and Milkha Singh. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa is also directed to commit the State case against the aforesaid three accused under Sections 326/324/323/34 Indian Penal Code to the Court of Session so that both these cases can be consolidated and disposed of together. This petition is allowed accordingly. Copy of this order be sent to both the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa, for compliance.
Petition allowed.
