Difference between revisions of "What Persons May Be Charged Jointly"

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 130002
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 41: Line 41:
  
  
=='''Noida: 7 arrested for defying lockdown orders, border with Delhi to stay sealed'''==
+
=='''Noida: 14 arrested for defying lockdown orders, border with Delhi to stay sealed'''==
Noida (UP), May 18 (PTI) Seven people were arrested and challans issued to owners of 223 vehicles for allegedly defying lockdown norms in Gautam Buddh Nagar on Monday, officials said.
+
Noida (UP), May 18 (PTI) Forteen people were arrested and challans issued to owners of 223 vehicles for allegedly defying lockdown norms in Gautam Buddh Nagar on Monday, officials said.
 
They said Noida's border with Delhi shall remain sealed until further orders.
 
They said Noida's border with Delhi shall remain sealed until further orders.
 
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Section 144 is in force in Gautam Buddh Nagar, which falls in the 'Red Zone' for COVID-19, even as lockdown restrictions continue due to the pandemic, prohibiting normal movement in this district in western UP adjoining Delhi.
 
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Section 144 is in force in Gautam Buddh Nagar, which falls in the 'Red Zone' for COVID-19, even as lockdown restrictions continue due to the pandemic, prohibiting normal movement in this district in western UP adjoining Delhi.
Line 54: Line 54:
 
Also, more than 1,705 FIRs have been lodged and 7,422 people booked, while challans issued to 28,509 vehicles and 1,330 vehicles have been impounded for the lockdown violation, the data stated.
 
Also, more than 1,705 FIRs have been lodged and 7,422 people booked, while challans issued to 28,509 vehicles and 1,330 vehicles have been impounded for the lockdown violation, the data stated.
  
This shows that they have violated the law and have been caught up on different days at different times but in relation to CrPC, Section 223, they will face court and their cases will be tried jointly.<ref>ww.HinduTimes.com/</ref>
+
This shows that they have violated the law and have been caught up on different days at different times but in relation to CrPC, Section 223, they will face court and their cases will be tried jointly.<ref>https://www.businessinsider.in/India/new/14-arrested-233-vehicles../</ref>
  
=='''CASE LAWS AND THEIR JUDGEMENTS AND THEIR RELATION TO CASES TO BE TRIED JOINTLY'''==
 
'''Harjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 21 December, 1984'''
 
Equivalent citations: AIR 1985 SC 404, 1986 CriLJ 831, (1985) 87 PLR 103, 1984 (2) SCALE 996, (1985) 1 SCC 422
 
Bench: A Sen, V B Eradi
 
JUDGMENT A.P. Sen, J.
 
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated May 9, 1984 upholding with certain modifications the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala dated April 24, 1984 directing that the two sessions trials be consolidated and clubbed together, and the evidence recorded in one case be read as evidence in the other.
 
 
2. The short point involved in this appeal is whether under Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 it is permissible for the Court to club and consolidate the case on a police challan and the case on a complaint where the prosecution versions in the police challan case and the complaint case are materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive. The question is whether the Court should in the facts and circumstances of the case direct that the two cases should be tried together but not consolidated i.e. the evidence be recorded separately in both cases and they may be disposed of simultaneously except to the extent that the witnesses for the prosecution which are common to both may be examined m one case and their evidence be read as evidence in the other.
 
 
3. Shortly stated, the facts are these. On the night intervening April 24/25, 1983, an occurrence took place at village Bhadaur in district Sangrur in which the nine respondents before us respondents Nos. 2 to 10 are alleged to have committed the murder of as many as five persons belonging to the complainant's party, three of whom died of gunshot injuries and to as a result of injuries inflicted by sharp-edged weapons. According to the post-mortem report, the deceased Nachattar Singh had been hacked to death and his head was severed. During the occurrence the complainant Harjinder Singh also received gunshot injuries. The first information report was lodged by one Chanan Singh, Head Constable, Police Station Bhadaur. After investigation the police put up a challan against the three respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Karnail Singh, Mohinder Singh and Gurcharan Singh and they have been committed to stand their trial in the Court of Sessions at Barnala for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 342 and 440, all read with Sections 149, 148 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
 
 
4. During the investigation, the complainant Harjinder Singh and seven others were arrested by the police for having committed alleged offences under Section 307 etc. of the Indian Penal Code but they were released on bail by the High Court on May 31, 1983. The police put up a challan in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Barnala against nineteen persons belonging to the complainant's side. On the basis of the challan they have also been committed to stand their trial before the Court of Sessions, but we are not concerned with that trial in this appeal.
 
 
5. Upon being released by the police and after collecting the relevant material, a complaint was lodged by the appellant in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate against the nine respondents before us i.e. respondents Nos. 2 to 10. In the meantime, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had fixed the case put up by the prosecution The State M Karnail Singh for recording of evidence. Apprehending that the complaint case filed by the appellant would not be committed until the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded, the appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code with a prayer that the trial of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Karnail Singh, Mohinder Singh and Gurcharan Singh be stayed till the complaint filed by him against them and six others was processed by the learned Magistrate and they were committed. On February 14, 1984 the High Court directed that the commitment proceedings be expedited. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate by his order dated March 30, 1984 committed all the nine accused to the Court of Sessions and sent them for trial to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. On April 7, 1984 the appellant filed an application that as the prosecution versions in the police challan case and the complaint case were conflicting and the number of accused and the prosecution witnesses were also different, the trial of the two cases may not be held together. While this application was pending, the respondents made an application on April 24, 1984 that the police challan case and the complaint case be consolidated and clubbed together. That application of theirs was allowed by the learned Additional Judge who by his order dated April 24, 1984 directed that the cases may be clubbed and consolidated and the evidence recorded in one case be read as evidence in the other case.
 
 
6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant preferred a revision before the High Court. A learned Single Judge by his order dated May 9, 1984 upheld the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge with certain directions. In adopting that course he referred to an earlier decision of a Division Bench of the High Court, of which he was a member, in the State of Punjab v. Wassan Singh and Ors. Criminal Revision No. 3-R of 1982 decided on February 10, 1984. The learned Single Judge observed :
 
One is to be alive to the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India providing that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. On the same principles, the provisions of Section 300, Criminal Procedure Code, are equally pertinent. It provides that when a person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under Sub-section (2) thereof.
 
 
He further observed :
 
Now if there were to be separate trials, the first trial would in the normal circumstances tend to end up in either the conviction or acquittal of Wassan Singh. In that eventuality, the second trial of Wassan Singh along with others cannot proceed in view of the aforesaid provisions. At this stage, it is to be remembered that the Court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. The Court of Sessions under Section 193 of the CrPC takes cognizance of the offence upon the committal of the case relating to that offence to it by a Magistrate.
 
Accordingly, he upheld the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the trials to be clubbed and consolidated which procedure, according to him, could not in any event be called improper or illegal. He however made the following directions: (1) The complainant should in no event be prejudiced by the adoption of such a course, and (2) the list of witnesses submitted along with the complaint would have to be exhausted by the Public Prosecutor and it should be vouchsafed that the complainant in that regard does not suffer i.e. in the matter of leading evidence in the complaint case. As regard the apprehension of the complainant that the evidence meant to be led in the police challan case and that meant to be led in the complaint case would be mutually exclusive and would necessarily lead to an acquittal of the accused on account of conflicting versions, the learned Single Judge observed that it need not be so as the Court would have to sift the grain from the chaff, that being its bounden duty.
 
 
7. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the High Court was wrong in upholding the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the cases be clubbed and consolidated particularly when the prosecution versions in the police challan case and the complaint care are materially different and the accused persons are also not the same. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan and Anr. for the submission that the two cases should be tried together but not consolidated. Further, he contends that in view of the conflicting prosecution versions in the two cases it is proper that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should inform the Government about the desirability to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case of the complainant.
 
 
8. In the facts and circumstances of this particular case we feel that the proper course to adopt is to direct that the two cases should be tried together by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but not consolidated i.e. the evidence should be recorded separately in both the cases one after the other except to the extent that the witnesses for the prosecution who are common to both the cases be examined in one case and their evidence be read as evidence in the other. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in one case, withhold his judgment and then proceed to record the evidence of the prosecution in the other case. Thereafter he shall proceed to simultaneously dispose of the cases by two separate judgments taking care that the judgment in one case is not based on the evidence recorded in the other case. In Kewal Krishan's case, supra, this Court had occasion to deal with a situation as the present, where two cases exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, one instituted on a police report under Section 173 of the Code and the other initiated on a criminal complaint, arose out of the same transaction. The Court observed that to obviate the risk of two courts coming to conflicting findings, it was desirable that the two cases should be tried separately but by the same court. The High Court was largely influenced in upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge by the fundamental right of the accused guaranteed by Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Code which provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. If there is no punishment for the offence as a result of the prosecution, Sub-clause (2) of Article 20 has no application. The constitutional right guaranteed by Article 20(2) against double jeopardy can still be reserved if the two cases are tried together but not consolidated i.e. the evidence be recorded separately in both cases and they be disposed of simultaneously. Further, the second prosecution must be for the 'same offence'. If the offences are distinct, there is no question of the rule as to double jeopardy being applicable.
 
 
9. We fail to comprehend the implications that would arise if the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as upheld by the High Court was to be implemented. The case presents a feature which is rather disturbing. In the special leave petition, there is a specific allegation made by the complainant that the accused are influential persons and they exerted pressure on the police as a result of which in the police challan case the complainant's party was shown to be the aggressOrs. It is further alleged that the police in order to achieve this object have presented a challan which is not supported by any of the witnesses of the occurrence and although the complainant Harjinder Singh received gunshot wounds, 1 e has not even been cited as a witness for the prosecution. It is said that the case against the accused is sought to be supported by the testimony of Chanan Singh, Head Constable, Pawan Kumar, Constable and the doctors who performed the post-mortem examinations. We have set out these allegations only for the purpose of showing the nature of the case against the accused in the police challan case. The complaint presents a different picture altogether. The prosecution case as set out in the complaint is at complete variance with that in the police challan. In our judgment, it is not permissible for the Court under Section 223 of the Code to club and consolidate the case on a police challan and the case on a complaint where the prosecution versions in the police challan case and: the complaint case are materially different, contradictory. and mutually exclusive.
 
 
10. For these reasons, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala dated April 24, 1984 as modified by the High Court by its order dated May 9, 1984, is set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed that the two cases be not consolidated but tried together with advertence to the observations made above.
 
 
 
 
'''Harjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 21 December, 1984'''
 
Equivalent citations: AIR 1985 SC 404, 1986 CriLJ 831, (1985) 87 PLR 103, 1984 (2) SCALE 996, (1985) 1 SCC 422
 
Bench: A Sen, V B Eradi
 
JUDGMENT A.P. Sen, J.
 
 
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated May 9, 1984 upholding with certain modifications the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala dated April 24, 1984 directing that the two sessions trials be consolidated and clubbed together, and the evidence recorded in one case be read as evidence in the other.
 
 
2. The short point involved in this appeal is whether under Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 it is permissible for the Court to club and consolidate the case on a police challan and the case on a complaint where the prosecution versions in the police challan case and the complaint case are materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive. The question is whether the Court should in the facts and circumstances of the case direct that the two cases should be tried together but not consolidated i.e. the evidence be recorded separately in both cases and they may be disposed of simultaneously except to the extent that the witnesses for the prosecution which are common to both may be examined m one case and their evidence be read as evidence in the other.
 
 
3. Shortly stated, the facts are these. On the night intervening April 24/25, 1983, an occurrence took place at village Bhadaur in district Sangrur in which the nine respondents before us respondents Nos. 2 to 10 are alleged to have committed the murder of as many as five persons belonging to the complainant's party, three of whom died of gunshot injuries and to as a result of injuries inflicted by sharp-edged weapons. According to the post-mortem report, the deceased Nachattar Singh had been hacked to death and his head was severed. During the occurrence the complainant Harjinder Singh also received gunshot injuries. The first information report was lodged by one Chanan Singh, Head Constable, Police Station Bhadaur. After investigation the police put up a challan against the three respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Karnail Singh, Mohinder Singh and Gurcharan Singh and they have been committed to stand their trial in the Court of Sessions at Barnala for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 342 and 440, all read with Sections 149, 148 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
 
 
4. During the investigation, the complainant Harjinder Singh and seven others were arrested by the police for having committed alleged offences under Section 307 etc. of the Indian Penal Code but they were released on bail by the High Court on May 31, 1983. The police put up a challan in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Barnala against nineteen persons belonging to the complainant's side. On the basis of the challan they have also been committed to stand their trial before the Court of Sessions, but we are not concerned with that trial in this appeal.
 
 
5. Upon being released by the police and after collecting the relevant material, a complaint was lodged by the appellant in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate against the nine respondents before us i.e. respondents Nos. 2 to 10. In the meantime, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had fixed the case put up by the prosecution The State M Karnail Singh for recording of evidence. Apprehending that the complaint case filed by the appellant would not be committed until the trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded, the appellant moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code with a prayer that the trial of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Karnail Singh, Mohinder Singh and Gurcharan Singh be stayed till the complaint filed by him against them and six others was processed by the learned Magistrate and they were committed. On February 14, 1984 the High Court directed that the commitment proceedings be expedited. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate by his order dated March 30, 1984 committed all the nine accused to the Court of Sessions and sent them for trial to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. On April 7, 1984 the appellant filed an application that as the prosecution versions in the police challan case and the complaint case were conflicting and the number of accused and the prosecution witnesses were also different, the trial of the two cases may not be held together. While this application was pending, the respondents made an application on April 24, 1984 that the police challan case and the complaint case be consolidated and clubbed together. That application of theirs was allowed by the learned Additional Judge who by his order dated April 24, 1984 directed that the cases may be clubbed and consolidated and the evidence recorded in one case be read as evidence in the other case.
 
 
6. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant preferred a revision before the High Court. A learned Single Judge by his order dated May 9, 1984 upheld the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge with certain directions. In adopting that course he referred to an earlier decision of a Division Bench of the High Court, of which he was a member, in the State of Punjab v. Wassan Singh and Ors. Criminal Revision No. 3-R of 1982 decided on February 10, 1984. The learned Single Judge observed :
 
One is to be alive to the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India providing that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. On the same principles, the provisions of Section 300, Criminal Procedure Code, are equally pertinent. It provides that when a person who has once been tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for an offence and convicted or acquitted of such offence shall, while such conviction or acquittal remains in force, not be liable to be tried again for the same offence, nor on the same facts for any other offence for which a different charge from the one made against him might have been made under Sub-section (1) of Section 221, or for which he might have been convicted under Sub-section (2) thereof.
 
He further observed :
 
Now if there were to be separate trials, the first trial would in the normal circumstances tend to end up in either the conviction or acquittal of Wassan Singh. In that eventuality, the second trial of Wassan Singh along with others cannot proceed in view of the aforesaid provisions. At this stage, it is to be remembered that the Court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. The Court of Sessions under Section 193 of the CrPC takes cognizance of the offence upon the committal of the case relating to that offence to it by a Magistrate.
 
Accordingly, he upheld the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the trials to be clubbed and consolidated which procedure, according to him, could not in any event be called improper or illegal. He however made the following directions: (1) The complainant should in no event be prejudiced by the adoption of such a course, and (2) the list of witnesses submitted along with the complaint would have to be exhausted by the Public Prosecutor and it should be vouchsafed that the complainant in that regard does not suffer i.e. in the matter of leading evidence in the complaint case. As regard the apprehension of the complainant that the evidence meant to be led in the police challan case and that meant to be led in the complaint case would be mutually exclusive and would necessarily lead to an acquittal of the accused on account of conflicting versions, the learned Single Judge observed that it need not be so as the Court would have to sift the grain from the chaff, that being its bounden duty.
 
 
7. It is contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the High Court was wrong in upholding the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the cases be clubbed and consolidated particularly when the prosecution versions in the police challan case and the complaint care are materially different and the accused persons are also not the same. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan and Anr. for the submission that the two cases should be tried together but not consolidated. Further, he contends that in view of the conflicting prosecution versions in the two cases it is proper that the learned Additional Sessions Judge should inform the Government about the desirability to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the case of the complainant.
 
 
8. In the facts and circumstances of this particular case we feel that the proper course to adopt is to direct that the two cases should be tried together by the learned Additional Sessions Judge but not consolidated i.e. the evidence should be recorded separately in both the cases one after the other except to the extent that the witnesses for the prosecution who are common to both the cases be examined in one case and their evidence be read as evidence in the other. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should after recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in one case, withhold his judgment and then proceed to record the evidence of the prosecution in the other case. Thereafter he shall proceed to simultaneously dispose of the cases by two separate judgments taking care that the judgment in one case is not based on the evidence recorded in the other case. In Kewal Krishan's case, supra, this Court had occasion to deal with a situation as the present, where two cases exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, one instituted on a police report under Section 173 of the Code and the other initiated on a criminal complaint, arose out of the same transaction. The Court observed that to obviate the risk of two courts coming to conflicting findings, it was desirable that the two cases should be tried separately but by the same court. The High Court was largely influenced in upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge by the fundamental right of the accused guaranteed by Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 of the Code which provides that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. If there is no punishment for the offence as a result of the prosecution, Sub-clause (2) of Article 20 has no application. The constitutional right guaranteed by Article 20(2) against double jeopardy can still be reserved if the two cases are tried together but not consolidated i.e. the evidence be recorded separately in both cases and they be disposed of simultaneously. Further, the second prosecution must be for the 'same offence'. If the offences are distinct, there is no question of the rule as to double jeopardy being applicable.
 
 
9. We fail to comprehend the implications that would arise if the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge as upheld by the High Court was to be implemented. The case presents a feature which is rather disturbing. In the special leave petition, there is a specific allegation made by the complainant that the accused are influential persons and they exerted pressure on the police as a result of which in the police challan case the complainant's party was shown to be the aggressOrs. It is further alleged that the police in order to achieve this object have presented a challan which is not supported by any of the witnesses of the occurrence and although the complainant Harjinder Singh received gunshot wounds, 1 e has not even been cited as a witness for the prosecution. It is said that the case against the accused is sought to be supported by the testimony of Chanan Singh, Head Constable, Pawan Kumar, Constable and the doctors who performed the post-mortem examinations. We have set out these allegations only for the purpose of showing the nature of the case against the accused in the police challan case. The complaint presents a different picture altogether. The prosecution case as set out in the complaint is at complete variance with that in the police challan. In our judgment, it is not permissible for the Court under Section 223 of the Code to club and consolidate the case on a police challan and the case on a complaint where the prosecution versions in the police challan case and: the complaint case are materially different, contradictory. and mutually exclusive.
 
 
10. For these reasons, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala dated April 24, 1984 as modified by the High Court by its order dated May 9, 1984, is set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed that the two cases be not consolidated but tried together with advertence to the observations made above. <ref>https://Indiakanoon/cases</ref>
 
  
 
=='''Supreme Court judgment on consolidation of Criminal Cases'''==
 
=='''Supreme Court judgment on consolidation of Criminal Cases'''==
Line 122: Line 62:
  
 
  The facts of the case also warrant that the two trials should be conducted by the same Presiding Officer in order to avoid conflict of decisions. As was observed in Harjinder Singh's case (supra) clubbing and consolidating the two cases, one on a police challan and the other on a complaint, if the prosecution versions in the two cases are materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive, should not be consolidated but should be tried together with the evidence inthe two cases being recorded separately, so that both the cases could be disposed of simultaneously.
 
  The facts of the case also warrant that the two trials should be conducted by the same Presiding Officer in order to avoid conflict of decisions. As was observed in Harjinder Singh's case (supra) clubbing and consolidating the two cases, one on a police challan and the other on a complaint, if the prosecution versions in the two cases are materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive, should not be consolidated but should be tried together with the evidence inthe two cases being recorded separately, so that both the cases could be disposed of simultaneously.
 +
 
Supreme Court of India
 
Supreme Court of India
 
Pal @ Palla vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 22 September, 2010
 
Pal @ Palla vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 22 September, 2010
Line 195: Line 136:
 
New Delhi
 
New Delhi
 
Dated: 22.09.2010
 
Dated: 22.09.2010
<ref>www.lawweb.com/2013/04/12/</ref>
+
<ref>https://www.lawweb.com/2013/04/12/</ref>
  
  
 
==Reference==
 
==Reference==

Revision as of 20:14, 26 May 2020

Certain Persons may be Charged Jointly (Section 223 of CrPc)

Article shared by Apil Khanal

Legal provisions regarding certain persons may be charged jointly under section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(a) Persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction;

(b) Persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence;

(c) Persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the meaning of Section 219 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months. Here, the number of offences for which several accused persons could be tried need not be limited to three;

(d) Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction. Here, the offence of conspiracy and the offences committed by each conspirator in pursuance of the conspiracy are ‘offences committed in the course of the same transaction’, and persons accused of such offences can be tried jointly at one trial;

(e) Persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion, cheating, or criminal misappropriation, and persons accused of receiving or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such offence committed by the first-named persons, or of abetment of, or attempting to commit any such last-named offence;

(f) Persons accused of offences under Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or either of those sections in respect of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence;

(g) Persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code relating to counterfeit coin, and persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or of abetment of, or attempting to commit any such offence; and the provisions contained in the former part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to all such charges.

The provisions of various classes of Section 223 of the Code need not be treated as mutually exclusive and it is permissible to combine the provisions of two or more clauses. The joint trial of several persons partly by applying one clause and partly by applying another clause is authorized. They are capable of being applied cumulatively. It is not permissible for the Court under Section 223 of the Code to club and consolidate the case on a police challan and the case 0П a complaint where the prosecution versions in the police challan case and the complaint case are materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive. An accused person cannot assert any right to a joint trial with his co-accused. It is the right of the prosecution to decide whom to prosecute.[1]


Section 223 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Explained!

Article shared by Sanju Gangaraadi

Legal Provisions of Section 223 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.

What persons may be charged jointly? The section provides for joint trial of several persons in certain specified cases because of some basic connection between the various offences committed by them. The joint trial of several persons partly by applying one clause and partly by applying-another clause of this section is permissible.

The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalpati Goneswara Rao, has observed that “it is clear that the sections preceding Section 223 have no overriding effect on that section, the Courts are not to ignore them but apply such of them as can be applied without deviating from the provisions of Section 223.”

The Apex Court in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab, has clarified that it is not possible for the Court under Section 223 of the Code to club and consolidate the case on a complaint where the prosecution versions in the police challan case and the complaint case are materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive. The essential elements in determining whether certain events form the same transaction, within the meaning of Section 223 are the continuity of action and the sameness of purpose. Thus the Supreme Court in Purushottam Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, held that the Court having local jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy can also try all offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy even if those offences are committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of that Court.

It may be reiterated that the exceptions contained in Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 to the basic rule regarding charge that for every distinct offence there shall be a separate charge and for every such charge there shall be a separate trial (Section 218) are only enabling provisions. Therefore, a Court has the discretion to order a separate trial even though the case is covered by one of the exceptions enabling a joint trial.

However, where there is risk of prejudice being caused to the accused person in a joint trial, it is always desirable to arrange a separate trial. Commenting on this point, the Supreme Court in Ranchod Lai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, has observed that it is the option of the Court whether to resort to Sections 219, 220, and 223 of the Code or to act as laid down in Section 218 and the accused has no right to claim joinder of charges or joinder of offenders.[2]


Noida: 14 arrested for defying lockdown orders, border with Delhi to stay sealed

Noida (UP), May 18 (PTI) Forteen people were arrested and challans issued to owners of 223 vehicles for allegedly defying lockdown norms in Gautam Buddh Nagar on Monday, officials said. They said Noida's border with Delhi shall remain sealed until further orders. Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Section 144 is in force in Gautam Buddh Nagar, which falls in the 'Red Zone' for COVID-19, even as lockdown restrictions continue due to the pandemic, prohibiting normal movement in this district in western UP adjoining Delhi. 'One FIR was registered on Monday for lockdown violations and seven people arrested. A total of 888 vehicles were checked across 200 barrier points in the district and challans issued to 243 of them, while another four were impounded,' the police said in a statement. The FIRs were registered under Indian Penal Code section 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant) and violation of prohibitory orders put in place under CrPC Section 144, which bars assembly of four or more people, they said.

Gautam Buddh Nagar District Magistrate Suhas L Y said the Noida-Delhi border is presently sealed except for permitted services. 'It (the sealing) shall continue till further orders or guidelines by the government of Uttar Pradesh,” he said in a statement on a daily COVID-19 bulletin. The district administration had in April banned movement between Noida and Delhi except for ambulances, doctors, media, and those directly involved in COVID-19 services. Over 6,327 people have been arrested in Gautam Buddh Nagar so far for defying the lockdown which came into force here on March 23, according to a police data available with PTI. Also, more than 1,705 FIRs have been lodged and 7,422 people booked, while challans issued to 28,509 vehicles and 1,330 vehicles have been impounded for the lockdown violation, the data stated.

This shows that they have violated the law and have been caught up on different days at different times but in relation to CrPC, Section 223, they will face court and their cases will be tried jointly.[3]


Supreme Court judgment on consolidation of Criminal Cases

In support of his submissions, Mr. Upadhyay firstly referred to the decision of this Court in Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1985) 1 SCC 422], where in an almost identical situation, this Court, while interpreting Section 223 Cr.P.C., held that clubbing of the two cases, one on a police challan and the other on a complaint, was not permissible and if the prosecution versions in the two cases were materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive, as in the instant case, such cases may be ordered to be tried together, but not 13 consolidated. In other words, the evidence is to be recorded separately in both the cases and they should be disposed of simultaneously so that the procedure does not infringe the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution read with Section 300 Cr.P.C.
The facts of the case also warrant that the two trials should be conducted by the same Presiding Officer in order to avoid conflict of decisions. As was observed in Harjinder Singh's case (supra) clubbing and consolidating the two cases, one on a police challan and the other on a complaint, if the prosecution versions in the two cases are materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive, should not be consolidated but should be tried together with the evidence inthe two cases being recorded separately, so that both the cases could be disposed of simultaneously.

Supreme Court of India Pal @ Palla vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 22 September, 2010 Bench: Altamas Kabir, A.K. Patnaik

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court on 14th December, 2007, disposing of the Appellant's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2 (Crl.M.A.No.29076 of 2007) with certain directions which were in keeping with the orders of the learned Magistrate impugned in the said petition.


3. On 1st July, 1996, the Appellant herein lodged a First Information Report at Nanauta Police Station in the District of Saharanpur, U.P., in regard to offences alleged to have been committed by Yashpal, Pramod, Dharma, Kalu and Kanwar, all residents of Village Bhojpur under Nanauta Police Station, under Sections 147, 323 and 302 I.P.C. The said five accused were alleged to have committed the murder of Bhartu, the father of the Appellant. According to the Appellant, the Investigating Officer began to conduct the investigation in a manner which was geared to favouring the accused. The Appellant, accordingly, filed a Writ Petition (Crl.) No.1166 of 1997, together with Gyan Singh, before the Allahabad High Court and prayed for the 3 investigation to be entrusted to an independent agency.

4. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending before the High Court, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against one Phool Singh and Vishwas on 23rd April, 1997, despite the fact that they had not been named by the Appellant in the First Information Report lodged by him. Subsequently, another charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer on 1st August, 1997, in which Gyan Singh, who was one of the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1166 of 1997, was named as an accused.

5. The writ petition came up for hearing before the High Court on 8th September, 1997, and was disposed of by the High Court which came to the conclusion that the investigation was improper, but, since charge-sheet had already been filed, the relief sought for by the Appellant for investigation by a different agency had become 4 infructuous. The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of by observing that the Appellant could seek other remedial measures available to him, including filing of a protest petition. Thereafter, on 3rd February, 1998, the Appellant filed a protest petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, District Saharanpur, and the same was treated as a complaint and statements were recorded by the learned Magistrate under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. On 5th September, 1998, the learned Magistrate issued summons to all the five accused who were named in the complaint and whose names also appeared in the First Information Report lodged by the Appellant.

6. It is against the said order of the learned Magistrate issuing summons that an application was filed by the five accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Misc. Application No.857 of 1999, challenging the said order which was, however, dismissed by the High Court on 15th May, 2002. The High Court upheld the order passed by 5 the learned Magistrate on 5th September, 1998, but directed that both the cases, one on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the police and the other on the basis of the complaint filed by the Appellant, would run simultaneously.

7. After their application had been disposed of by the High Court on 16th May, 2002, the accused persons made an application before the learned Sessions Judge on 11th April, 2004, praying that the two cases be tried separately, since, in the meantime, both the cases had been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. After their cases were committed to the Court of Sessions, only one sessions trial, being S.T.No.772 of 2003, was commenced. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused named in both the cases, i.e., the charge-sheet submitted by the police and the complaint filed by the Appellant. As a result, all those persons, against whom the police had submitted a charge- sheet, were the witnesses named by the Appellant 6 in his First Information Report. The accused in both the cases denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The charges against both sets of accused were framed in the same Sessions Trial No.772 of 2003 and the entire proceeding was being conducted both in respect of the complaint filed by the Appellant and that filed by the investigating authorities.

8. Difficulties arose when the prosecution started examining its witnesses according to the charge-sheet filed by the police and the Sessions Judge proceeded in the trial of cases adopting the procedure provided under Section 210(2) Cr.P.C., although, it was pointed out to the learned Sessions Judge that since none of the accused in both the cases was common, the procedure prescribed under Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. could not be legally adopted and the procedure prescribed under Section 210(3) would be applicable to the facts of the case. It was also pointed out that earlier also the High Court had 7 directed the cases to be tried simultaneously and the accused in the complaint case had themselves made an application on 11th April, 2004, for separate trials of the two cases.

9. On 31st October, 2007, the prosecution examined its witnesses mentioned in the charge- sheet and an application was made by the Appellant for closing the evidence of the prosecution, which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge upon observing that it was the prerogative of the prosecution to examine or not to examine any witness and the complainant had no say in the said matter. It is at this stage on 12th December, 2007, that the Appellant moved the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for a direction that the trial of the two cases be held separately. The said application came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 14th December, 2007, and was disposed of by the learned Judge upon holding that the procedure adopted by the 8 Magistrate did not suffer from any infirmity or error in clubbing both the cases in which witnesses have been mentioned.

10. Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court in upholding the order of the Magistrate clubbing the two cases together, the Appellant filed the special leave petition, out of which the present appeal arises.

11. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a common trial can be held in respect of two cases, one on the basis of the charge-sheet filed by the police and the other on the basis of a protest petition which has been treated as a complaint having been committed to the Court of Sessions, although, none of the accused in the said two cases are common. In fact, as indicated hereinabove, the accused in one of the cases are the witnesses in the other and vice versa.

12. At this stage, it may be indicated that at an earlier point of time, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance on the protest petition filed by the Appellant, treating the same to be a complaint, and summons were issued against the persons arraigned as accused therein. The accused persons challenged the order of the learned Magistrate before the High Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.857 of 1999, which was dismissed on 16th May, 2002, but with the direction that the case arising out of the police report and the other case arising out of the complaint should be tried simultaneously by the Court of Sessions in order to find out as to whose version was true and who were the real culprits.

13. On the basis of the said directions, the learned Magistrate clubbed the two proceedings together, in keeping with the provisions of Section 210 of the Code, as there could be possibility of inconsistent findings. When the 10 same was questioned before the High Court, it held that the Magistrate appeared to have adopted the correct procedure for clubbing both the cases and that the complainant would be at liberty to examine the witnesses shown in the complaint case in order to serve the cause of justice. The trial court was also directed to give permission to the complainant to examine the witnesses cited by him.

14. Mr. R.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel, who appeared for the appellant, urged that Section 210 Cr.P.C. provides for the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and a police investigation in respect of the same offence. He submitted that Sub-Section (2) of Section 210 makes it clear that if the Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a report filed by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against any person, who is also an accused in a complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try the two cases together, as if 11 both the cases have been instituted on a police report. Mr. Upadhyay submitted that Sub-Section (3) of Section 210 was not attracted to the facts of this case since it deals with a procedure where, if the police report did not relate to any accused in the complaint case or the Magistrate did not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he would proceed with the inquiry or trial, which might have been stayed by him under Sub-Section (1) in accordance with the provisions of the Code.

15. According to Mr. Upadhyay, the clubbing of the two cases together was not in accordance either with the provisions of Sub-Section (2) of Section 210 Cr.P.C. or the directions given by the High Court in the earlier proceedings between the parties. Mr. Upadhyay urged that having regard to the peculiar facts of the case, where the accused in one case is the witness in the other, difficulties were bound to arise at the time of examination of witnesses in a common 12 trial. On the other hand, if the two cases were tried separately, as directed by the High Court and the witnesses were examined separately, it would be possible to arrive at the truth after comparing the two sets of evidences that would be led in the two separate cases. Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the High Court was contrary to the provisions of Section 210(2) Cr.P.C. and was liable to be set aside.

16. In support of his submissions, Mr. Upadhyay firstly referred to the decision of this Court inHarjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1985) 1 SCC 422], where in an almost identical situation, this Court, while interpreting Section 223 Cr.P.C., held that clubbing of the two cases, one on a police challan and the other on a complaint, was not permissible and if the prosecution versions in the two cases were materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive, as in the instant case, such cases may be ordered to be tried together, but not 13 consolidated. In other words, the evidence is to be recorded separately in both the cases and they should be disposed of simultaneously so that the procedure does not infringe the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution read with Section 300 Cr.P.C.

17. In this regard reference was also made to an earlier decision of this Court in Kewal Krishan s/oLachman Das vs. Suraj Bhan & Anr. [(1980 (Supp.) SCC 499], on which reliance had been placed in Harjinder Singh's case (supra), where the same views had been expressed and it had been observed that the two cases should be tried separately but by the same court to avoid risk of two courts coming to conflicting findings. Mr. Upadhyay submitted that Section 223 Cr.P.C. did not contemplate clubbing of cases, though, it provides for trial of two cases arising out the same transaction, on a police report and on a complaint, separately, but by the same court. Learned counsel submitted that the High Court 14 was, therefore, wrong in clubbing the two cases together in a single trial and the impugned order was, therefore, liable to be set aside.

18. On behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, learned Additional Advocate General, tried to persuade us to take the view which has been taken by the High Court in clubbing the two cases together. He reiterated the reasoning of the High Court that in view of the fact that the High Court had earlier chosen not to quash the order dated 5th September, 1998, taking cognizance of the offence on the protest petition filed on behalf of the Appellant herein, the case arising out of the cognizance taken on the police report was required to be tried simultaneously with the other case by the Court of Sessions in order to find out as to whose version was true and who were the real culprits. Mr. Dwivedi submitted that by clubbing the two cases together, the Sessions Court had substantially complied with the directions of the 15 High Court by trying the two cases together and that having regard to the fact situation, the Sessions Judge had no option but to club the two cases together for trial. In fact, Mr. Dwivedi contended that unless the two cases were clubbed together, there could be a possibility of inconsistent findings and that the High Court had rightly held that the expression "simultaneously" would mean that both the cases should be taken together.

19. In support of his submissions, Mr. Dwivedi firstly referred to the decision of this Court inKhetrabasi Samual Etc. vs. State of Orissa [(1969) 2 SCC 571], wherein, on the basis of Section 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, this Court upheld the direction given by the Magistrate to club the two cases together on the ground that Section 239 of the Code allowed the trial of a number of persons whether accused of the same offence or of different offences, if 16 these were committed in the course of the same transaction.

20. Reliance was also placed on another decision of this Court in Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi [(2007) 12 SCC 641], which, however, dealt with the procedure to be adopted under Section 210 Cr.P.C., 1973, as a whole. Mr. Dwivedi urged that the order passed by the High Court upholding the order of the learned Magistrate, did not call for any interference in the facts of this case.

21. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are unable to accept the submissions advanced by Mr. Dwivedi on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

22. Section 210 Cr.P.C. provides the procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. Sub-Section (1) of Section 210 provides that when in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report, namely, a complaint case, the 17 Magistrate is informed during the course of inquiry or trial that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject matter of inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate is required to stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and to call for a report on the matter from the Police Officer conducting the investigation. Sub-Section (2) provides that if a report is made by the Investigating Officer under Section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the Magistrate against any person, who is an accused in a complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try the two cases together, as if both the cases had been instituted on a police report. Sub-Section (3) provides that if the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case, or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on a police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial which was stayed by him, in accordance with 18 the provisions of the Code.

23. Although, it will appear from the above that under Section 210 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate may try the two cases arising out of a police report and a private complaint together, the same, in our view, contemplates a situation where having taken cognizance of an offence in respect of an accused in a complaint case, in a separate police investigation such a person is again made an accused, then the Magistrate may inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report. That, however, is not the fact situation in the instant case, since the accused are different in the two separate proceedings and the situation has, in fact, arisen where prejudice in all possibility is likely to be caused in a single trial where a person is both an accused and a witness in view of the two separate proceedings out of which the trial arises. In our view, this is a case where 19 the decision in Harjinder Singh's case (supra) would be more apposite. In the said case, the question of Article 20(2) of the Constitution, as well as Section 300 Cr.P.C., relating to double jeopardy was considered. A similar situation has arisen in this case where the version in the complaint case and the police report are totally different, though, arising out of the same incident. In our view, this is a case where the two trials should be held simultaneously but not as a single trial.


24. The facts of the case also warrant that the two trials should be conducted by the same Presiding Officer in order to avoid conflict of decisions. As was observed in Harjinder Singh's case (supra) clubbing and consolidating the two cases, one on a police challan and the other on a complaint, if the prosecution versions in the two cases are materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive, should not be consolidated but should be tried together with the evidence in 20 the two cases being recorded separately, so that both the cases could be disposed of simultaneously.

25. Although, the High Court has relied on the provisions of Section 210 of the Code in directing that the two cases be clubbed together, in our view, the fact situation does not really attract the provisions contemplated in the said section. On the other hand, as indicated hereinabove, the trial court, in the unusual facts of the case, is required to hear the two cases together, though separately, and take evidence separately, except in respect of all witnesses who would not be affected either by the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 Cr.P.C.

26. The order of the High Court impugned in the appeal cannot, therefore, be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside 21

27. The trial court shall proceed to hear the two cases simultaneously, but separately, in the light of the observations made hereinbefore and dispose of the same simultaneously as well, as expeditiously as possible.

28. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. ................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR) ................................................J. (A.K. PATNAIK) New Delhi Dated: 22.09.2010 [4]


Reference