THANGAMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai in Crl.M.P.No.279 of 1999 in S.C.No.36 of 1998, rejecting the request of the petitioners-accused seeking long adjournment of the case, the petitioners have come forward with the instant criminal revision.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that on 13.2.1997, there had been an occurrence, regarding which the police registered Crime No.38 of 1997 against the petitioners herein and also Crime No.39 of 1997 against certain other persons based on a petition preferred by one of the accused. THE investigating officer investigated both the matters, but filed charge-sheet in Crime No.38 of 1997 to the effect that the petitioners herein have committed offence under Secs.147, 148, 324, 326 and 302, I.P.C. THE learned Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai, took the case on file on 15.10.1997 and committed the same to the Court of Sessions on 29.6.1998. THE case was transferred by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukottai to the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukottai on 9.7.1998. THE charges were framed against the petitioners herein on 11.9.1998 and the case is pending trial.

(3.) THE next question is what is the procedure that the Sessions Court has to adopt in proceeding with the trial. THE Supreme Court expressed a doubt whether the evidence recorded in one criminal case can be treated as evidence in another case, even with the consent of the accused. THE Apex Court has issued specific guidelines in Nathi Lal and others v. State of U.P. and another, 1990 S.C.C. (Crl.) 638 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have pointed out as under: