RAMESH BATNI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is said to be Accused No. 6 in Special C.C. No. 163/2001. In the course of hearing, an application was filed by Accused No. 5 under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.' for brevity). The court below while dismissing the said application, has made the following observation:

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent -CBI would however point out that the court has proposed that evidence would have to be recorded independently in both the cases and that arguments would have to be heard again separately in each case one after the other and it is thereafter that judgment would be pronounced. However, he would not subscribe to the view that a common judgment could be passed and hence would submit that otherwise, there is no prejudice that would be caused to the petitioner, except that if a common judgment is passed, it may result in prejudice to the petitioner. The contention that the proposal to pass a common judgment in both the cases therefore, cannot be permitted. It is impermissible in law as rightly contended by both the counsel. For otherwise there is no palpable prejudice that is caused to the petitioner for separate evidence would be tendered in each case and separate arguments will be heard. This is to enable the court to appreciate the evidence in a better fashion to arrive at its findings. However, the proposal to pass a common judgment is inexplicable while the court may adopt the procedure as proposed and shall not pass a common judgment but it may pass a separate judgment in each case after adopting the procedure as proposed. With that observation, the petition stands disposed of.