Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1368 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Aman Suman

2017-12-12

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the order recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, CBI, Shimla, H.P. whereby he segregated offences borne in Section 304(A) (aa), from, the offences borne in Sections 180 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, besides thereafter he proceeded to relegate the accused concerned, to the learned trial Magistrate concerned, for, hence facing trial for commission of offences, contemplated under Sections 180 and 196, of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. For making an apt determination vis-a-vis the legality, of the aforesaid pronouncement, an allusion of the apt provisions, borne in Section 223 Cr.P.C. is imperative, provision whereof stands extracted hereinafter:- “223. What persons may be charged jointly. The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:- (a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course same transaction. (b) person accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence. (c) person 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. (d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction. (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 (45 of 1860) or either of those sections in respect of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence. (f) persons accused of offences under sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 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: Provided that where a number of persons are charged with separate offences and such persons do not fall within any of the categories specified in this section, the Magistrate 02 Court of Session may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire and if he or it is satisfied that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons together.” A circumspect reading of the hereinabove extracted relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. make a clear (i) expostulation, of, the category of persons enumerated therein, being tried together vis-a-vis the offences, committed, during the course of the same transaction, (ii) of persons abetting, attempting or conspiring vis-avis the principal accused, in the latter committing offences also being amenable for theirs being jointly tried, alongwith the principal offender. (iii) Hereat, respondent No. 1 Aman Suman, is the principal offender, he is alleged to commit an offence punishable under Section 304(A) of the IPC and respondent no. 2 Sumritra Chauhan, is alleged to commit an offence punishable under Sections 180 and 196, of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. Uncontrovertedly, ascriptions of the aforesaid penal offences vis-a-vis Aman Suman and qua Sumritra Chauhan, arise from and are prima-facie evidently committed, during, the course of the same transaction. Consequently, both were amenable to be tried jointly, for all the offences aforestated. However, on the learned Additional Sessions Judge, segregating, the offences ascribed vis-a-vis Aman Suman, from, the ones ascribed vis-a-vis Sumritra Chauhan, has hence obviously infracted the statutory provisions, engrafted in Section 223 Cr.P.C. (i) thereupon his verdict suffers from a gross infirmity, hence it is quashed and set aside. However, on the learned Additional Sessions Judge, segregating, the offences ascribed vis-a-vis Aman Suman, from, the ones ascribed vis-a-vis Sumritra Chauhan, has hence obviously infracted the statutory provisions, engrafted in Section 223 Cr.P.C. (i) thereupon his verdict suffers from a gross infirmity, hence it is quashed and set aside. The Court concerned, shall proceed to charge the accused respectively, if not charged, for the incriminatory roles ascribed vis-a-vis them by the Investigating Officer concerned, in the latter's report furnished before the learned committal Magistrate and shall also hold them to a joint trial. However, it is open for one Sumritra Chauhan, to argue for discharge before the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned. 4. In view of the above directions, the instant petition as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.