JAI NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 47 of 1968, and Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No 91 of 1968, and Criminal Revision Nos. 422, 423 and 434 of 1963.

(2.) I will first narrate the facts of Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 47 of 1968 There are 6S2 petitioners in this petition under section 526,239 435,-139 and 56:-A, Criminal Procedure Code, 662 of them were being tried in pursuance of three complaints, one under section 188, Indian Penal Code ; another under section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, section 4 of Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act and sections 147, 149 and 353. Indian Penal Code, and the third under section 7 of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance and section 29 of the Police Act. There are nine other petitioners against whom the first complaint is for violation of section 188, Indian Penal Code, and section 3 of the Police Forces (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922. Against the remaining eleven petitioners, the first complaint is under section 188 Indian, Penal Code. The second complaint against six petitioners is under section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, section 4 of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, and sections 147, 149 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, and against 14 petitioners under section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and sections 147, 149 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The third complaint out of the petitioners mentioned above other than 662 petitioners is only against Chhida Singh under section 7 of the Essential Service (Maintenance) Ordinance and section 29 of the Police Act. Complaints one and two have already been merged but with respect to the merged complaints I and 2 and the third complaint each petitioner is being tried separately. Under the orders of the Supreme Court the cases are being tried by four Magistrates and the learned counsel for the parties showed us a copy of the order of their Lordships of the Supreme Court and argued that the earlier order of the Supreme Court transferring these cases of the four Magistrates did not fitter, in any manner, the power of this Court to older joint trial of all the accused persons, which is one of the principal prayers of the petitioners. The cases against these 602 petitioners arise out first imformation report No. 88 of 1967 lodged in police Station Chankya Puri, and Mr. Bipin Behari Lal, the learned counsel for the respondents, pointed out to us that complaints had to be filed because

(3.) The petitioners moved the Court of Session for transfer of cases to one Magistrate. The learned Sessions Judge. while recognising the desirability of trial of all the accused persons by one Magistrate, felt that it may not be practicable to have the trial of all the petitioners, numbering about 600 to 700, in one Court. The learned Sessions judge also obs(ved that regarding the "numerous cases pending against the same accused, it is left to the discretion of the Magistrate whether he would order separate or joint trial in accordance with law In case the Magistrate passes a wrong order, the party aggrieved can come up in revision. The P. P. agrees in principal that all cases against one accused should be tried by one Magistrate and that the same accussed should not be dragged to different courts. He tells me that steps are already being taken to avoid any such harassment to the accused". The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 19th March, 1968, disposed of the application with the above observations.