YERRA NARASIMHAGARI NARASIMHA REDDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been referred to a bench by one of us having regard to two judgments which require further consideration viz., one in Subrayulu Naidu v. Kailasam Pillai 1935 Mad. W.N. 645 and the other in Gr. R.C. No. 207 of 1956 (Andhra). The petition is to stay the trial of a Sessions case No. 35 of 1960 committed in P.R.C. No. 2 of 1960 pending the committal of a private complaint against same number of accused plus one named Mahananda Reddy and for a joint trial of both the cases. It appears that 33 persons were going to the railway station Vanganur to attend court in Proddatur, Cuddapah District, At about 11-30 p.m.. when they reached Pennar river, the 21 accused along with one Mahananda Reddy were hiding and they dispersed in three directions and began to commit riot and fired at the party. Some of them were injured and one of them killed. The police, after investigation filed a charge-sheet only against 21 accused on 14-3-1960 after which some of the accused surrendered and a final charge-sheet was filed on 29-4-1960.The case was ready for committal on 29-6-1960 I and was committed on 30-6-1960. About four days prior to the committal, the petitioner who is also the first informant and was one of the 33 persons who were said to be coming to the railway station on the night of the incident, filed a private com plaint against all the 22 accused on 25-6-1960 and thereafter filed this petition on 2-9-1960 to stay the trial of the Sessions Case.

(2.) In the decision of the Criminal Rev. Case No. 207 of 1956 Kumarayya held that the procedure under Sections 207-A and 208 Cr. P.C. for cases initiated by the police and by private complaints respectively being different, the clubbing of two cases is not possible in law but it was possible to stay one of the proceedings till the committal proceedings in another case come to an end.In this view, he stayed P.R.C. No. 17/1956 filed by the police in that case till the disposal of P.R.C. No. 20/1955 which was in its last stage, and that in case of committal of both cases, there should be one trial. On the other hand, in another decision which was by one of us, in Cr. M,P., No. 229 of 1958 (A.P.), in similar circumstances, the petition to stay the trial of Sessions Case pending the committal of the P.R.C. case on a private complaint was rejected on the ground that the private complaint was still in its infancy and there is no equity to stay the trial of a case already committed.

(3.) The learned advocate for the petitioner has cited the decision in 1935 Mad. W.N. 645, and in Mukania v. Achalia, AIR 1952 Raj 160 to support his contention, that it is possible to hold a joint trial of two cases filed by the police as well as by private complainant. These cases, in our view do not support that contention. All that they decide under the old Procedure Code is that when the enquiry is going on in one of the cases before a Magistrate he could conduct the enquiry in the other case also and wait to pronounce the order till the other is decided,In fact, in the former case Burn J. observed that "there is no justification whatever for the recording of the evidence twice over"; because the Magistrate cannot commit anybody twice since there is only one criminal transaction in which the accused are said to have been engaged. These observations strengthen the view that no evidence need be taken in a P.R.C. proceedings arising out of a private complaint against the accused who were already committed. In the Rajasthan case, Wanchoo C.J. only confirmed a joint trial already conducted as there was no illegality on the facts of the case.