SOMABHAI SHAMALBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present Special Criminal Application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in the Criminal Revision Application No. 37 of 1985 on 24 By the said order the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision application filed by the present petitioners who had filed the said revision application against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Himatnagar on 14-1-1985 in the Criminal Cases Nos. 735 to 843 of 1985 on application Exh. 37. By the said order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the present petitioners who are the original accused for having joint trial of the aforesaid criminal cases. The said application was filed on 7-1-1985 stating that they have no objection if all the said cases are consolidated and tried together. It was also pointed out that there was one F.I.R. for the said cases and that the auditor has also made one audit report for the same. It was also submitted that if the cases are tried separately then the accused will be put to much inconvenience and therefore it was prayed that all the cases should be tried together.

(2.) The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has pointed out in his order that there are 108 cases. The offences alleged against the accused are punishable under secs. 408 465 467 471 and 477A of the IPC. The said offences have taken place during the period from 1-6-74 to 31 and the total amount involved is Rs. 7 85 443-77. The learned Magistrate has observed that in those cases the witnesses will be in great number and that the entries of alleged misappropriation will be required to be proved by examining each concerned witnesses and that the falsification also will be required to be proved. It is also pointed out by the learned Magistrate that there are great number of entries in 108 cases and that at the time of writing the judgment reference will be required to be made of entries from the case. Considering all the relevant circumstances looking to the amount involved and the entries which are to be proved the learned Magistrate was of the opinion that if the cases are consolidated there would be very much complication. While on the contrary if the cases are tried separately it would be more convenient to record the evidence and to refer the same in the judgment. Accordingly the learned Magistrate has dismissed the said application filed by the petitioners accused.

(3.) The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has confirmed the order dismissing the said application and he has also given reasons for the same. One of the reasons stated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is that there is likelihood of prejudice to the accused if the cases are allowed to be consolidated. He has also pointed out in his judgment that whether the proceedings should be consolidated or not depends not only on the written application of the accused under sec. 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code but also on the opinion of the learned Magistrate that in consolidating the same prejudice is not likely to be caused to the accused. If the Magistrate is of the aforesaid opinion then the application of the accused which is given in writing for hearing all the cases together can be granted. However the learned Addl. Sessions Judge also observed that new right of making an application is granted to the accused by the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of sec. 218 but sub-sec (2) thereof further states that nothing in sub-sec. (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions under secs. 219 220 221 and 223 and therefore if such application is granted it would affect the provisions of secs. 219 220 221 and 223. Refusal of the application made by the petitioners is therefore correct.