SATISH CHANDRA CHAKRABARTY Vs. SUBRATA MAJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Rules arise out of an order governing three cases made by the Magistrate Sri A.K. Roy Choudhury by which he has directed that the three cases shall be tried in the same trial by amalgamating the other two with the remaining one. It appears that there were three cases instituted upon complaints made by three different complainants in respect of occurrences of three different dates against the same accused person named Subrata Majumdar alias Mantu Majumdar. In case No. C618 of 1963 the offences alleged are under Sections 323 and 504, Indian Penal Code and the date of occurrence is said to be July 18, 1963; in case No. C654 of 1964 the offence alleged is one under Section 323 I. P. C. and the date of occurrence is said to be July 26, 1963 and in case No. 652 of 1963 the offence alleged is one under Section 323 I. P. C. and the date of occurrence is said to be July 25, 1963. At a stage when witness action had not commenced in any of these cases, applications were made by the accused person for amalgamating the three cases and holding one trial in respect of all the offences alleged in all the three cases. To that application objections were raised on behalf of the complainants in each of the three cases. The learned Magistrate however overruled those objections and directed that the three cases shall be tried in the same trial although he has also said in that order that "that does not mean that each of the three cases will lose its identity and will in any case be influenced or adversely affected by lack of adequate evidence in any of the remaining two cases, though there will be only one trial.

(2.) This order has been impugned in the three re visional applications in this Court. The learned Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Chintaharan Roy has contended that the order of the Magistrate is really creating an innovation unknown to Criminal Procedure Code in which statute amalgamation of cases is not at all contemplated. The learned Magistrate has discussed in his order Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but he has missed one essential requirement for application of that section, that the offences need have to be of the same nature which an offence under Section 323 and an offence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code are not.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the opposite party Mr. Talukdar has frankly said that amalgamation is unknown to Criminal Procedure Code but the learned advocate sought to defend the order of the learned Magistrate by referring to that part of his order where the learned Magistrate has shown his consciousness that the three cases will not loose identity.