K MANICKAM Vs. COD POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these cases; the accused concerned are facing trial in respect of offences relating to category of cases specified in paragraph-4 of the decision of the Supreme Court in the COMMON CAUSE case reported in ILR 1996 KAR 2063, in the sense that the Directions 1 and 2 thereof would not be applicable, going by the ratio of the common CAUSE case. In all these cases, trial has commenced, in the sense that either the charge has been framed and plea recorded, or some progress made even thereafter by examination of some of the prosecution witnesses. On the basis of the Directions in the other decision of the Supreme Court in RAJ DEO SHARMA case reported in 1998 SCC (CRIMINAL) 1692, when the accused requested the concerned trial judges to close the prosecution evidence and to post the matter for the next stage, the learned Trial judges have declined to do so on the ground that the offences concerned relate to categories specified in paragraph 4 of the common CAUSE case, and, as such, the directions in RAJ DEO sharma cannot be made applicable thereto for the reason that even in RAJ DEO SHARMA, it is clarified that the directions given thereunder are in addition to and without prejudice to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in COMMON CAUSE case. Being aggrieved by this view taken by the learned Trial judges concerned herein, the accused petitioners have approached this Court under section 397 Cr. P. C.

(2.) WHEN I refer to COMMON CAUSE case and RAJ DEOSHARMA. in course of this order, I also include therein the clarificatory order in COMMON CAUSE case reported in ILR 1997 KAR 217, and the clarificatory order in RAJ DEO SHARMA case reported in 1999 CRIMINAL LAW JOURNAL 4541.

(3.) SRI Bhavani Singh, learned High Court Government Pleader, supporting the view taken by the learned trial Judges strenuously urges that the Supreme Court, in RAJ DEO SHARMA, having made it absolutely clear that the directions given in RAJ DEO SHARMA are in addition to and without prejudice to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in COMMON CAUSE, RAJ DEO SHARMA cannot be independently read but has to be read along with the COMMON cause, and in that event, exceptions made in paragraph-4 of the common CAUSE taking away certain categories of causes from the scope of the directions issued thereunder, would very much be applicable even in respect of the directions give in RAJ DEO sharma. Both the decisions being required to be read together, sri Bhavani Singh, learned HCGP, submits that whether it is common CAUSE or RAJ DEO SHARMA, whenever the trial Judge needs to pass an order, he has to bear in mind that the directions in either of the two cases will not be applicable to the categories of cases mentioned in paragraph-4 of the COMMON CAUSE. Sri bhavani Singh, learned HCGP, therefore submits that since admittedly all these cases relate to offences covered by categories specified in paragraph-4 of the COMMON CAUSE, the trial judges were right in declining to accede to the request of the petitioners-accused in the matter of closing the prosecution evidence and going to the next stage in accordance with the directions of RAJ DEO SHARMA.