MUNNALAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Revision No. 730/2000 is directed against the order dated 5.5.2000 passed by the Special Court, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the 'Act') in ST. No. 203/91 by which ST No. 85/92, State; of M.P. v. Jugraj Singh, was directed to be amalgamated with S.T. No. 203/91 by holding that both the session trials were arising out of the same incident and Cr. Rev. No. 730/2000 is directed against the order dated 12.5.2000 passed by the aforesaid Court in S.T. No. 85/92 by which the application filed by petitioners under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brief the "Code") has been dismissed. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that initially an offence was registered at Police Station Gotegaon and on investigation the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 namely Munnalal and Brijlal were charge-sheeted under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. Subsequent to it, a private complaint was iniitiated against all petitioners regarding the same incident in which the cognisance under the aforesaid section of the Indian Penal Code was taken against them. In view of the provisions of section 210 of the Code, S.T. No. 85/92 was amalgamated with S.T. No. 203/91, pending in the same Court and by order dated 5.5.2000 both the cases were directed to be fixed for final arguments on 8.5.2000. On 8.5.2000, an application under section 311 of the Code was filed for recalling the witnesses who have already been examined in S.T. No. 203/91. During the period, other petitioners were not impleaded as an accused in the trial. In the application it was prayed that by recalling the examined witnesses, opportunity to cross-examine them be given to the petitioners against whom cognizance was taken subsequently in a private complaint. Such application has been by holding that cross-examination of such witnesses are not necessary, hence these revisions are preferred for setting aside both the orders.

(2.) In Criminal Revision No. 730/ 2000, Shri Alok Tapikar, learned Counsel for petitioners has submitted that both the session trials were wrongly amalgamated which is contrary to the prescribed procedure. He also submitted that the circumstances as mentioned in both the cases are different from each other, thus, the Trial Court has wrongly tagged both the cases and committed grave error in directing that both the cases would be heard simultaneously. He further submitted that the order dated 5.5.2000 be set aside and the Trial Court be directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

(3.) He also submitted that on taking cognizance in a private complaint and after amalgamating both the trials under the provisions of the Code the petitioner Nos. 3 to 12 were entitled to extend an opportunity to defend their case in which right to cross-examine all the examined witnesses is also included. He further submitted that it was the duty of the Court to recall all the witnesses who have already been examined in S.T. No. 203/91 for giving opportunity of cross- examination to the petitioners and accused of S.T. No. 85/92. According to his submission, when witnesses were examined, petitioners No. 3 to 12 were not impleaded as an accused in the charge- sheet of S.T. No. 203/91 and subsequent to it, when cognizance was taken against them then renovo trial ought to have been proceeded but that procedure was not followed. He also referred to some decided and reported cases and prayed for setting aside of both the orders by allowing the application filed under section 311 of the Code with appropriate direction.