Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 284 (JHR)

Bindeshwari Choubey v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-20

H.C.MISHRA

body2015
ORDER By the Court.-Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This writ application has been filed with a prayer for quashing the order dated 9.7.2013 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 22 of 2013, by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, whereby out of the four criminal cases instituted against the petitioners of similar nature, learned Sessions Judge, taking into consideration Section 219 of the Cr PC, has directed that two of them shall be tried jointly and rest two cases be tried separately. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by said order, submitting that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to invoke Section 220 of the Cr PC, wherein there is provision that all the cases of similar nature be tried together. 4. From the perusal of the record, it appears that four separate criminal cases were instituted against the petitioners, on the basis of four separate complaint cases filed against them. These are, B.S. City P.S. Case No. 193 of 2012, Harla P.S. Case No. 56 of 2012, B.S. City P.S. Case No. 248 of 2012 and Sector IV P.S. Case No. 64 of 2012. All these criminal cases were instituted against the petitioners on the basis of the complaint cases, filed by the respective complainants, in which, there is allegation against the petitioners of receiving the illegal money from them on the pretext of providing employment. It appears that after investigation of the cases, the charge-sheets were submitted against the petitioners. 5. The petitioners filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 22 of 2013 in the Court below under Section 220 of the Cr PC, for joint charge and trial with respect of all the cases, submitting that all the cases were of similar nature committed almost within the same period and accordingly, it was a fit case for trying all the cases together under Section 220 of the Cr PC. The Court below found that all the cases are of same nature, but in view of Section 219 of the Cr PC, only three cases could be tried together. The Court below found that all the cases are of same nature, but in view of Section 219 of the Cr PC, only three cases could be tried together. However, as there are four cases against the petitioners, the Court below by the impugned order directed that all the cases to be transferred in one Court and further directed that two of them, namely, B.S. City P.S. Case No. 193 of 2012 and B.S. City P.S. Case No. 248 of 2012 shall be jointly tried and rest two cases, namely, Harla P.S. Case No. 56 of 2012 and Sector IV P.S. Case No. 64 of 2012 shall be separately tried. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have moved before this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that all the cases are of the same kind and with the similar allegations and they also form the same transaction and as such, under Section 220 of the Cr PC, all the cases could be tried together. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 7. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, in the case of Sankar Prosad Banerjee & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in 1973 Cr LJ 509, wherein where, three cases were instituted for the offence, the Calcutta High Court directed that all the three cases be tried together. Learned counsel also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Somasundaran @ Tembi & Ors. v. State, reported in 1997 Cr LJ 1769, wherein where, the offence was committed and some of the accused persons claimed that they ought to be tried separately by the Magisterial Court, but the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that since the offence was committed in same transaction, the Sessions Judge who was trying the other co-accused persons had the jurisdiction to try all the accused in the same trial. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that in view of Section 219 of the Cr PC, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below. 9. Section 219 of the Cr PC, reads as follows :- "219. Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together.-(1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. *** *** ***." 10. Section 220 of the Cr PC, reads as follows :- "220. Trial for more than one offence.-(1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. *** *** ***." 11. A bare reading of these two provisions clearly show that up to three offences of the same kind committed within the span of one year, may be charged and tried together. So far as Section 220 of the Cr PC, is concerned, it speaks for trial for more than one offences committed in one series of acts, and so connected together, so as to form the same transaction, and in that case, it is provided that more such offences than one committed by the same person may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. 12. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that all the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners have been committed in one series and they formed part of the same transaction and as such, in all fitness of the case, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have invoked the provision of Section 220 of the Cr PC, and ought to have directed that all the cases be tried together. 13. 13. The facts of the cases lodged against the petitioners show, that four persons have filed separate complaint cases against the petitioners which were sent for institution of the police cases and the police cases were accordingly instituted. In all the four cases, different complainants have separately claimed to have given money to the petitioners for the illegal purpose. In my considered view, it cannot be said that the offences were committed in the same transaction, as the money was allegedly taken separately by the petitioners from the different complainants of the different cases. By no stretch of imagination, all these offences can form part of the same transaction and accordingly, they cannot be tried together invoking the provision of Section 220 of the Cr PC. 14. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners upon the decisions cited above are absolutely misconceived. In Sankar Prosad Banerjee's case (supra), three separate cases were instituted for the same occurrence, in which, three persons had died. In the facts of that case, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that all those three cases should be tried together. As such, this decision is not at all applicable to the facts of this case. Similarly, the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Somasundaran's case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is also not applicable to the facts of this case. In the said case, arising out of the same occurrence, some of the accused persons were being tried by the Sessions Court. The other accused persons claimed that no offence triable by the Court of Session was made out against them and they claimed to be tried before the Magisterial Court and in the backdrop of these facts, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that the Sessions Judge had the jurisdiction to try all the accused persons together. 15. The fact remains that all the four cases, in which, the petitioners are the accused, were committed within a period of one year and the offence are of same kind, though they do not form the part of the same transaction. In that view of the matter, the provision of Section 219 of the Cr PC, has been rightly invoked by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in the impugned order dated 9.7.2013. In that view of the matter, the provision of Section 219 of the Cr PC, has been rightly invoked by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in the impugned order dated 9.7.2013. However, two cases have been directed to be tried separately, which in my considered view, can be tried jointly. Accordingly, it is directed that Harla P.S. Case No. 56 of 2012 and Sector IV P.S. Case No. 64 of 2012 shall also be tried jointly, if these cases are still pending in the Court below. 16. I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners for invoking Section 220 of the Cr PC, in the facts of this case, for trying all the cases together. Consequently, this application stands dismissed, with modification in the impugned order dated 9.7.2013 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 22 of 2013 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, as indicated above. Application dismissed.