AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Gaur, J.
Crl. M.A. No. 14700/2008 (Exemption) in Crl. M.C. No. 3947/2008
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
Crl. M.C. No. 3947/2008
The question raised in this petition is whether the provisions of Section 220 of Code of Criminal Procedure would apply to a person who has been accused of committing three offences of the same kind within one year but the place of incident, Police Station/Station Division and witnesses being different.
Petitioner is facing trial in the following three cases:
a) FIR No. 376/07 u/s 328/379/420/468/471/411/34 of Indian Penal Code registered on 23.10.2007 in Police Station Delhi Cantt.;
b) FIR No. 396/07 u/s 328/379/411/34 of Indian Penal Code registered on 19.11.2007 in Police Station Mandir Marg, New Delhi;
c) FIR No. 12/08 u/s 328/379/411/34 of Indian Penal Code registered on 08.01.2008 in Police Station Delhi Cantt.
In the aforesaid three cases, Petitioner has been charge sheeted for committing an offence punishable u/s 411 of Indian Penal Code, i.e., for the offence of purchasing stolen articles.
Joint trial of the above said three cases was sought by the Petitioner by moving an application u/s 408 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Session Judge and the same stood declined by holding as under: ''It thus, emerges that all the cases relate to different incidents and therefore the judgment in the case of Sudhir and Ors. (Supra) is of no help to the applicant/accused as three criminal cases which are sought to be transferred by the applicant/accused to one court, relate to different incidents, distinct police stations and wherein witnesses are also different. In the circumstances, there is no justification to allow the prayer of the applicant/accused. The application is hereby dismissed.''
Section 220 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been relied upon by the Petitioner for seeking clubbing of the aforesaid three cases pending against him for the offence punishable u/s 411 of Indian Penal Code. Section 220 of Cr.P.C. stipulates that if in one series of acts so connected together, as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
During the course of the arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon case of Adnan Bilal Mulla Vs. The State of Maharashtra, , where it was found that the common thread was running through the different incidents of bomb blast at different places in Mumbai and the trial of Mumbai blast cases was clubbed together in the peculiar facts of the said case by holding that the connection between the series of acts is an essential ingredient for those acts to constitute the same transaction.
Reliance has been also placed by the Petitioner upon the case of Smarty Machra and Anr. v. State 2007 (2) JCC 1570, wherein accused persons were found to have jointly committed different offences of theft of car stereos and it was held that it is necessary that the accused persons ought to have been accused of jointly committing other offences of the same kind to attract Section 223 of the Cr.P.C.
The ratio of the afore cited judgments does not apply to the case of Petitioner as he is facing trial in these three different cases with his co-accused, not for the main offence but for ancillary offence of possessing stolen articles. Furthermore, the exercise of jurisdiction u/s 220 of the Cr.P.C. is discretionary one. The learned Session Judge, Delhi has rightly refused to exercise it in the present case to club together these three cases as FIR No. 396/07 pertains to different session division. However, it is found that the other two FIRs, i.e., FIR Nos. 376/07 and 12/08 pertain to Police Station Delhi Cantt. and thus to one Session Division; and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the trial of aforesaid two FIRs said to be pending before two different Additional Sessions Judges, at Dwarka Courts, New Delhi can be conveniently assigned to one court.
It has been stated in the present petition that the trial of FIR No. 376/07 is pending before the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts at the stage of arguments on the point of charge and the trial of FIR No. 12/08 is also pending before Sh. N.K. Kaushik, learned Additional Session Judge, Dwarka Courts, at the stage of arguments on the point of charge.
In view of the foregoing position, this petition is partly accepted to the extent that the learned Sessions Judge Delhi is directed to assign the trial of FIR No. 376/07 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt., and the trial of FIR No. 12/08 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt., to one court, to enable the Petitioner to move an appropriate application u/s 220 of Cr.P.C. for clubbing the trial of the aforesaid two FIRs, if so advised. The prayer of the Petitioner for transferring FIR No. 396/07 registered at Police Station Mandir Marg, New Delhi to a court of different session division, where the other two FIRs are pending, is hereby declined.
With aforesaid directions, this petition and pending applications stand disposed of.