SAKINA ARJUM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding further in the matter, the order passed on 1.5.2014 needs to be reproduced hereunder:

(3.) FROM the conjoint reading of those provisions, it does appear that if the report is submitted by the police under Section 173 and on that basis if the cognizance of the offence is taken against the person accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall enquire into or try together the complaint case as well as the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases have instituted on a police report. However, if the police report submitted does not relate to an accused, the Court should proceed with the inquiry and trial with respect to that/those accused person/persons but both the cases be tried together. However, the evidence should be recorded separately in both the cases one after the other except to the extent that the witnesses for the prosecution who are common to both the cases be examined in one case and their evidence be read as evidence in other. The Court should after recording the evidence of the prosecution witness in one case withhold his judgment and then proceed to record the evidence of the prosecution in the other case. Therefore, he shall proceed to dispose of the cases simultaneously by two separate judgments taking care that the judgment in one case is not based on the evidence recorded in other case which proposition has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Harjindar Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, : AIR 1985 SC 404. In that event, the order passed by the Trial Court is justified whereas the order passed by the Revisional Court does not seems to be inconsonance with the provision as contained in Sub -sections (2) and (3) of Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.