SUBODH BHANDARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.7.2004 passed by the learned trial court separating trial of the petitioner from remaining three accused persons and ordering that the trial would be taken up on day -to -day basis, in FIR No. 242/2002. PS Sarojini Nagar, under sections 420/406/409/120 -B IPC.

(2.) FACTS necessary for disposal of this case are as follows. Triveni Singh of M/s. Bajaj Capital Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Complainant') lodged a report with the police, stating that they are authorised by the Reserve Bank of India, to deal in, sale and purchase of Central and State Government securities. Petitioner was the Vice President of M/s. Home Trade Company Pvt. Ltd. and other three accused were its directors (hereinafter accused persons). The accused persons represented that they were authorised to trade in Government securities. On their representation, complainant entrusted to the accused persons Rs. 1.42 crore for purchase of some Government Securities. Accused persons did not deliver the securities, despite requests. After completion of investigations, challan was filed. Prosecution's case is that petitioner was the Vice President and authorised signatory of the accused Company and the contract notes were issued under his signatures. The accused persons did not have any authorisation or approval and were not eligible to trade in Government securities in the National Stock Exchange. It is alleged that accused persons cheated and defrauded the complainant and several other persons. Petitioner and other accused persons are admittedly involved in several cases of cheating and fraud, of several crores in Delhi as well as in other States. The modus operandi of the accused persons was to allure the general public, brokers and sub -brokers, who wanted to deal in Government securities, representing themselves to be professional and transparent company, thereby enticing people to purchase Government securities through them, when in fact the Government securities which they were selling and issuing contract notes, could not be sold by them. Petitioner is in custody for the last one year in this case. The co -accused, in the case, are confined in Surat and Nagpur in other cases. They are not being produced despite issuance of production warrants by the trial court. Petitioner filed an application for grant of bail and the same was dismissed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice O.P. Dwivedi on 11th March, 2004 directing the trial court to take up the case on day -to -day basis and to conclude the same preferably within six months from the next date of hearing, observing:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner argued that there is no provision in law whereby the trial of the petitioner could be separated from other accused persons, who are lodged in jail(s). The trial of one or set of persons can only be separated, in case one or more than one persons, have not been arrested and have been declared proclaimed offenders. The evidence in such cases can be recorded under section 299 Cr.P.C. Learned APP has argued that there is no such prohibition in law. The question which needs consideration is whether in the absence of any specific provision in the Cr. P.C. trial court has the power to separate the trial of some of the accused persons, who have been jointly put up for trial by the investigating agency?