Sr. no.
Date of Case and Court Relevant Paragraph(s)
Decision
1. 10.07.2019 PATNA HIGH COURT 6. Separation of trial, amalgamation of record is a
procedural phenomenon without having proper
Sajid Ansari and Ors. Vs. presence under code and it has to be carried out in
The State of Bihar accordance with feasibility. So many factors are
MANU/BH/1215/2019 responsible for the same, that means to say, non
appearance of the accused during course of
investigation, non completion of the investigation
against particular accused, while submission of charge
sheet against others abscondence of accused. In
likewise manner, when there happens to be presence of
accused and the trial is at the same stage, more
particularly, no witness has been examined on behalf of
prosecution, then in that circumstance, there could be
amalgamation as it would not cause prejudice to the
respective parties. But as soon as, witness is examined,
it could not be. The basic principle for conduction of
criminal trial is, it should always be in presence of an
accused as provided under Section 273 Cr.P.C.
However, presence of accused should not be physical
and for that, two relevant provisions are there which
guides the issue, the first one Section 205 of the Cr.P.C.
and second one is Section 317 Cr.P.C., one another
Section i.e. Section 299 Cr.P.C. also gives such
endurance but with a condition, that the same should be
exercised only after declaration of an accused as an
absconder. However, while availing either of the two,
the accused has to forego his precious right, to
challenge the identification and in so many case, it
plays vital role but, the law speaks like so.
2. 16.10.2019 SUPREME COURT OF 48. However, given the serious nature of the facts
INDIA alleged in the communication of the Commissioner of
Revenue dated 15-3-2011, we direct that the police
Vinubhai Haribhai register an FIR based on this letter within a period of
Malaviya v. State of one week from the date of this judgment. This FIR is to
Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1 be enquired into by a senior police officer designated by
the Commissioner of Police concerned, who is to
furnish a police report pursuant to investigation within a
period of three months from the date on which such
officer is appointed to undertake such investigation. If
such police report results in a prima facie case being
made out, and if the Judicial Magistrate takes
cognizance of such charge-sheet, charges will then be
framed and trial held. In the meanwhile, the trial in FIR
dated 22-12-2009, which has been stayed by this Court
by an order dated 24-4-2019 [Vinubhai Haribhai
Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 43] , will
not be commenced until the police report is submitted
in the FIR to be lodged by the police pursuant to this
judgment. The learned Magistrate may then decide, in
the event that cognizance is taken of the police report in
the FIR to be filed, as to whether a joint trial should
take place, or whether separate trials be conducted one
after the other pursuant to both the FIRs.
3. 21.11.2023 SUPREME COURT OF 5. “After having perused the impugned judgment, we
INDIA find that the High Court has not even considered the
reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate in the order
S. Mujibar Rahman dated 16th July, 2019. Secondly, the High Court has not
Vs. The State Rep. By noticed that the learned Judicial Magistrate on 13th
Inspector Of Police & Anr. February, 2019 had permitted further investigation.
Therefore, when the High Court permitted splitting of
the trial, two important aspects were not noted by the
High Court. The first one was that the learned
Magistrate was not satisfied that the police have made
sufficient efforts to procure the presence of all the
accused. The second factor which is more important is
the order of further investigation passed on 13th
February, 2019, Therefore, this was not the stage at
which the High Court could have permitted splitting of
the case.
4. 23.04.1963 SUPREME COURT OF 28. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in T.B.
INDIA Mukherji case directly in point and is clearly to the
effect that the different clauses of Section 239 are
State of A.P. v. mutually exclusive in the sense that it is not possible to
Cheemalapati Ganeswara combine the provisions of two or more clauses in any
Rao, 1963 SCC OnLine one case and to try jointly several persons partly by
SC 38 applying the provisions of one clause and partly by
applying those of another or other clauses. A large
number of decisions of the different High Courts and
one of the Privy Council have been considered in this
case. No doubt, as has been rightly pointed out in this
case, separate trial is the normal rule and joint trial is an
exception. But while this principle is easy to appreciate
and follow where one person alone is the accused and
the interaction or intervention of the acts of more
persons than one does not come in, it would where the
same act is committed by several persons, be not only
inconvenient but injudicious to try all the several
parsons separately. This would lead to unnecessary
multiplicity of trials involving avoidable inconvenience
to the witnesses and avoidable expenditure of public
time and money. No corresponding advantage can be
gained by the accused persons by following the
procedure of separte trials. Where, however, several
offences are alleged to have been committed by several
accused persons it may be more reasonable to follow
the normal rule of separate trials. But here, again, if
those offences are alleged not to be wholly unconnected
but as forming part of the same transaction the only
consideration that will justify separate trials would be
the embarrassment or difficulty caused to the accused
persons in defending themselves. We entirely agree
with the High Court that joint trial should be founded
on some “principle”............”
