PAWAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard through video conferencing.

(2.) Shri Arun Pateriya, learned counsel for respondents ably assisted by Shri V.D.Sharma and Shri Atul Gupta, learned counsel by relying upon decisions of Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Mishrilal (Dead) & others 2003 SCC (Cri) 1829 (para 8), State of Kerala Vs. Ayyappan & others (2007)3 SCC (Cri) 672 (para 3) submit that in cross/counter cases the trial ought to be consolidated and all accused in main case and cross/counter cases should be tried together to prevent prejudice to either side.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents Shri V.D.Sharma has raised another issue that non-consolidation of both trials would prejudice the petitioner and respondents- accused herein since judgment in the case of 9 co-accused would be pronounced earlier which would prejudice the mind of the trial Judge while conducting trial of petitioner and the absconding co-accused who had been arrested late. This it is contented would violate fundamental right of speedy trial of all the accused. It is also urged that since concept of fair trial stands at a higher pedestal than the concept of speedy trial, the consolidation even if it leads to delayed trial, such delay deserves to be ignored.