Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 901 (HP)

STATE OF H. P. v. SATISH KUMAR

2009-10-22

SURINDER SINGH, SURJIT SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh (Oral)-State has filed two separate appeals against the judgment dated 23.3.1996 of learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, whereby two separate cases against two different persons have been disposed of by a common judgment. Though State has not challenged the judgment on the ground that two separate cases against two different persons could not have been disposed of by a common judgment yet we propose to deal with this aspect of the matter because, to us, it appears that law does not permit this kind of course of action. 2. Relevant facts are as follows. On 12.3.1995 when PW7 Inspector Kishan Chand S.H.O. Police Station Kihar was present at a place called ‘Kandla Morh’ near Surangani in Chamba District he saw two persons, respondents in the two appeals, whose particulars are given in the heading of this judgment, sitting by the side of the road on a parapet. Each of them was having a bag placed on his thighs. On seeing the police, respondents got unnerved. That aroused the suspicion of PW7 Inspector Kishan Chand. PW1 Budhi Singh, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat was accompanying Inspector Kishan Chand at that time. Inspector Kishan Chand questioned the two respondents about what they were having in their bags. Thereafter search of the bags was conducted. Charas was recovered from the bags of each of the respondents. Respondents were accused of being in separate possession of Charas recovered from their respective bags. Separate cases were registered against them. Separate reports under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were filed. They were charged separately by the trial Court. Trials were also conducted separately. However, while disposing of the two cases, trial Court wrote a common judgment, i.e., judgment dated 23.3.1996. 3. Separate cases were registered against them. Separate reports under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were filed. They were charged separately by the trial Court. Trials were also conducted separately. However, while disposing of the two cases, trial Court wrote a common judgment, i.e., judgment dated 23.3.1996. 3. We have not come across any judicial precedent that where two separate cases are instituted and tried separately against two different persons for their having committed similar offences separately, though on the same date, at the same time, and at the same place, such cases cannot be disposed of by a common judgment but we are of the considered view that such a course is not permissible under the law, because the Code of Criminal Procedure does not even permit the joint trial or joinder of charges in such a situation, especially when the accused are alleged to have committed the offences separately and such offences have not been committed in the course of same transaction. Respondents were charged for possession of the Charas which was recovered from their respective bags. It was not the case of the prosecution that the Charas recovered from the respondents, from their respective bags, was in their joint possession or that Charas found in the bag of even one of them was in joint possession of both of them. Case of the prosecution was that the respondents were in separate possession of the Charas recovered from their respective bags. That is why two separate cases were registered, separate challans were filed and separate trials were held after charging the respondents separately. 4. In view of the above stated position, we accept both the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the trial court and remand both the cases to the trial Court with the direction to dispose them of by separate judgments, after rehearing the parties and appraising the evidence led in each case. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 27.11.2009.