STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. ABDUL RASHEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A-1 is convicted for an offence punishable u/s. 87 r/w Sec. 379, ipc and sentenced to S. I. for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo S. I. for two months. In the charge-sheet there are three accused persons. A-2 and A-3 are absconding and the case against them is split up before the trial Court. A-l is tried and convicted.

(2.) THE prosecution case discloses that a-1 was the driver of a private jeep. A-2 and a.-3 were the inmates of the jeep. When the forest officials intercepted and checked the jeep, they found 100 Kgs. of sandal wood consisted in 47 rough dressed billets. Under a mahazar, the contraband is seized. The facts of the prosecution case disclose that all the three accused persons shared common intention and were smuggling the sandal-wood.

(3.) THE charge-sheet material discloses that all the accused persons shared common intention and were jointly transporting sandal-wood billets. There is a grave lapse on the part of the trial Court in not invoking Sec. 34, IPC for holding joint trial. The failure to do so would become fatal to the prosecution case. The absence of Sec. 34, IPC in the charge could enable each of the accused to disclaim possession throwing blame on the others and thus ultimately making the case of prosecution vulnerable at trial. This type of lapse has become a routine order in umpteen number of criminal cases. It is necessary that the trial Judges should always bear in mind that unless the provisions of law relating to common intention, common knowledge, conspiracy and common object are invoked in the charge, it is not permissible to hold joint trial of two or more accused be it for the offences under ipc or under any special penal enactments.