The court upheld that a trial can proceed against an accused even when another accused is absent, especially if the latter is insane.

1.Heard Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The order dated 19-5-2001 passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in S. T. 166 (W. T. / A) / 90 has been put under challenge by way of the present criminal revision under S.397/401, Cr. P.C. by the accused petitioner Smt. Bhanumati Devi (Nath).

3. The gist of the case which led this criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner could be precisely narrated as under : -
Two accused persons, namely, Smt. Bhanumati Devi (Nath) and Sri Asim Nath had been sent for trial before the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge in connection with West Agartala PS Case No. 276/98 under S.498 - A / 306, I.P.C. A plea was raised on behalf of the accused Asim Nath before the learned trial Court that since before his marriage with the deceased Anita Chetri he has been suffering from mental disorder and after marriage, the said disease turned to be aggravated and he became a patient of psychomotor retardation. Being frustrated with the suffering of her husband with incurable disease, Smt. Anita Chetri committed suicide on 4-8-98. On being moved by the plea of insanity, the learned trial Court proceeded with the provision under S.329, I.P.C. and on recorded medical evidence the learned trial Court having been satisfied postponed the trial against the insane accused Asim Nath and directed the trial to be proceeded against the accused Bhanumati Devi. The accused Bhanumati Devi put the aforesaid order of the learned trial Court under challenge in this revision petition.

4. Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist submits that the provision under S.329, Cr. P.C. does not permit a trial to be splitted enabling the trial to proceed against one having kept the same postponed for other. The learned Public Prosecutor Mr. D. Sarkar having referrd the S.317(2) of Cr. P.C. submits that in a contingency where one accused is absent for obvious reason without being represented by any lawyer or due to persistent absence of one accused the case is being dragged, the trial Court can pass the order for separate trial for the absentee accused as and when his attendance could be procured and, as such, it is implied that separate trial is permissible.

5. To decide whether separte trial for one or other accused is permissible having kept the trial postponed regarding others, it is to be examined whether in a criminal trial pertaining to commission of offence the case is to be tried or the accused is tried? In case it is found that a case is tried then it may not be possible to split up the trial, but if the converse is found then as and when it becomes expedient to do so, a separate trial for an accused would be obviously permissible having kept the trial adjourned sine die against other. The provisions laid down under S.228(2), Cr. P.C. so far it relates to Sessions trial, S.240(2), Cr. P.C. concerning warrant cases contemplate that after framing of charge against an accused person, the Court is required to ask the accused "whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried". The provisions of S.300(1), Cr. P.C. prohibit the second trial of any accused "who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence". The provision of S.299(1) of Cr. P.C. authorises the Court to proceed with the trial against one accused while other remains absent and there is no immediate prospect of his attendance being procured.

6. The aforesaid provisions of the Criminal Procedu