LALIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is landing trial in the court of III Add. District & Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions trial No. 404 of 1994 (State Vs. Harpal and others ) under Sections 363, 366, 376 Indian Penal Code prosecution evidence had been closed and the case was fixed for defence evidence. It appears that Harpal Singh was also involved in this crime. The case against him was investigated by C.I.D. and a charge-sheet was submitted before the Magistrate who summoned him.

(2.) The petitioner moved an application before the trial court stating that the above two cases be decided together. This application was rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved by it the accused has come to this court by way of this revision.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and looked into the record of the case. Reliance on behalf of the revisionist has been placed upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in cases State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Ganeshwar Rao AIR 1963 SC 1850 and Banwari & another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1962 SC 1198. and Sections 218 and 222 of Cr. P.C. These two rulings as well as Sections 218 and 222 of Cr. P.C. relate to the joinder of Charges and circumstances under which a number of accused could he jointly tried. The revisionist and Harpal Singh could have been jointly tried but that does not mean that the trial of the revisionist should he kept pending wanting the commitment of Harpal Singh. The prosecution evidence in the case has already been concluded. No question of joint trial now arises. Each case would he decided on the basis of evidence adduced in the case. The evidence recorded in one case cannot he looked into the other case. The argument that in case the revisionist is convicted and Harpal Singh is found guilty then the revisionist would unnecessarily suffer is not convincing. In the case against Harpal the point for decisions would he as to whether Harpal Sigh committed the murder or not. The innoncence or guilt of the revisionist would not be enquired into or determined in that Sessions trial. No prejudice would be caused to the revisionist if his trial is separately be concluded. The order in' question does not suffer from any infirmity.