JAMAHIR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JAMAHIR Mahto, the informant of Bibhutipur RS. Case No. 91 of 2003 (Sessions Trial No. 284 of 2006) and one of the accused of Complaint Case No. C.R. 455 of 2003 is aggrieved by the order dated 25.8.2006 passed by Sri Birendra Kumar, learned Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Cr. Misc. No. 105 of 2006 whereby he has been pleased to recall the Complaint Case pending in the Court of Sri B.K. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rosera, and the Sessions Trial pending before the learned Pre siding Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Samastipur, and transferred them to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rosera, for disposal as both the cases were counter to each other as also the date and place of occurrence in both the cases were the same. The said Cr. Misc. Case had been preferred by the complainant party of the complaint case.

(2.) ASSAILING the impugned order the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to submit that in the facts and circumstances as was existing, the order was both uncalled for and unwarranted due regard being had to the facts that whereas in the Complaint Case the statement of the accused under Section 311 Cr.P.C. had already been recorded, in the Sessions Trial even charge has not been framed and clubbing two cases together for disposal would only lead to an unnecessary delay in the disposal of the Complaint Case. It was further contended that the complainant party of the Complaint Case had purposely preferred the Cr. Misc. Petition only to delay the disposal of the Complaint Case with the sole motive of causing harassment to the accused party as that case would also have to be kept pending till completion of the procedural formalities of the Sessions Case. It was also contended that the learned Sessions Judge before passing the impugned order ought to have taken into consideration the different stages of pendency of both the cases. It is worth notice that although O.R No. 2 in pursuance of the notice issued did put in an appearance by filing vakalatnama but during the hearing neither O.R No. 2 nor his accredited counsel was present in court.

(3.) IT is a salutary practice that when two criminal cases relate to the same incident, they are tried and disposed of by the same court by pronouncing judgments on the same day. The Apex Court has given its approval to the said practice in Nathi Lai vs. State of U.P. reported in 1990 Supp. SCC 145 and has also delineated in the same judgment the procedure to be followed in such a situation. Then again in the case of Sudhir vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2001)2 SCC 688, the Apex Court has explained the practical reasons for adopting a procedure that such cross cases shall be tried by the same court and has summarized the same thus "(1) It staves off the danger of an accused being convicted before his whole case is before the court; (2) It deters conflicting judgments being delivered upon similar facts; and (3) In reality the case and the counter case are, to all intents and purposes, different or conflicting versions of one incident."