Aarchit Agrawal and Others vs State of M.P.

S.K. Palo, J.—Heard.

This petition has been preferred by the petitioners/accused persons Archit Agrawal and Abhishek Hada being aggrieved by the order dated 18.4.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, Guna, in Sessions Trial No. 141/2013.

The facts giving arise to this revision are that Sessions Trial No. 141/2013 (State v. Ranu Balmiki and others) is pending before the Sessions Judge, Guna for trial of offence under Sections 307 /34 , 302 , 147 , 148 of 149 of IPC read with Section 25 /27 of Indian Arms Act.

Police Station, Guna, filed a supplementary charge-sheet against the accused Sattu @ Shatrughan in the same crime number which was later committed to the Sessions Court, hence, Sessions Trial No. 141-A/2013 has been registered. Court proceeded separate trial for the reason that in Sessions Trial No. 141/2013, thirteen witnesses 351 were examined and Hon''ble the Supreme Court has given a specific direction to dispose the case within a stipulated time. Hence, the Sessions Judge, Guna vide order dated 16.6.2014 directed to institute the supplementary challan as Sessions Trial No. 141-A/2013 and ordered for a separate trial.

The petitioners Abhishek and Archit filed an application before the Sessions Court, Guna, and demanded that both the charge-sheets should be tried together for the: cases have been arisen out of the same crime.

Counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on order dated 8.1.2015 passed in CLR No. 1031/2014 (Aditya Trivedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh) decided by this Court, in which it was opined that where alleged offence have been committed in the course of the same transaction and the offence is alleged to have been committed not by just one person but by all the accused persons can be jointly tried in respect of all these offences under Section 223 of Cr.P.C."

Before the learned Trial Court, other accused Shatrughan also filed similar application which was jointly decided by the impugned order. The learned Trial Court dismissed the applications with a reasoned order that in the present Sessions Trial No. 141/2013, thirty two prosecution witnesses and twenty two defence witnesses have been examined. Only one defence witness is yet to be examined, which is listed for 23.4.2015. Besides, the direction of Hon''ble the Supreme Court to dispose of the case within time framed cannot be overlooked. Twice the Court has requested for extending the time. The accused persons Abhishek and Ranjeet Raghuvanshi are in custody since 28.1.2013 and 21.1.2014 respectively. Therefore, the application filed by the accused persons under Section 223 of Cr.P.C. was rejected.

In this backdrop, the present revision has been filed challenging the impugned order and praying for a direction to the trial court to try the Sessions Trial No. 141/2013 and 141A 2013 together.

In Section 223 of Cr.P.C. the words used may be itself shows that the accused persons may be jointly tried together. If the Court has reason to try separately, the Court may choose so. Sub-section 2 of Section 317 of Cr.P.C. provides that "if the Court thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by it, such trial may be ordered to be tried separately."

Section 223 of Cr.P.C. is only an enabling section and does not trammel the discretion of the Court. The Court has a discretion to proceed jointly or separately against the accused persons. The Court must see that the accused are not prejudiced by the joint trial. No provision prevents the Court from trying the case as against the other accused person separately, if the facts and circumstances of the particular case so warrant.

In the present context, the learned trial court by the impugned order, ordered a separate trial for subsequently filed charge-sheet with cogent reasons. Per Contra; the petitioners failed to show how they are prejudiced by the separate trial.

In A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and Another, , Hon''ble the Apex Court has propounded that "the accused cannot claim a joint trial with co-accused". In Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Harnath Singh and Others, , it is held that "where the earlier trial of nine accused persons was at its conclusion, clubbing of the trial of the tenth accused charged for the same offence and de novo trial of the ten accused persons was held not proper".

With the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that the impugned order, keeping in mind the direction of Hon''ble the Apex Court, does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality: Hence, it calls for no interference.

That being so, the present revision under Sections 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.