Ram Singh Batra vs CBI and Others

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—By way of present petition u/s 482 Criminal Procedure Code the Petitioner prayed for quashing of order dated 20th August, 2010 passed by learned MM whereby he directed that the trial against accused Baljit Singh shall be segregated from the trial of remaining accused persons and the trial shall proceed further against other accused persons since Baljit Singh was not traceable.

A Crl.MC No. 1670 of 2010 was filed before this Court by one of the accused persons alleging that the trial court should be given directions to dispose of the criminal complaint No. 4(S) 2004-SCB-II/CBI/DLI, Fir No. 107 of 2001 expeditiously and time be fixed for completion of trial. While disposing of this Crl. MC No. 1670 of 2010 on 17th May, 2010, this Court observed that charge-sheet in this case was filed by CBI on 18th April, 2007 and thereafter the case had not been proceeded further because one of the accused Baljit Singh was not traceable and had not appeared before the trial court despite all efforts. This Court gave directions that since Baljit Singh was not appearing before the trial court, the trial court may consider segregation of the trial and proceed against the remaining accused persons and this Court also gave direction that endeavour should be made to dispose of the case within one year.

In pursuance of this order, the learned MM passed order dated 20th August, 2010 segregating the trial against Baljit Singh from the trial of rest of the accused persons who were appearing before the trial court and proceeded further with the trial. The present petition has been filed after a gap of one a half year of the order questioning the segregation of trial.

Apparently the accused persons seem to be on a collision course. While one accused person wanted earlier trial, the other wants trial not to take place and is happy with the adjournments and hanging of the trial. However, these accused persons are related to each other and there seems to be a concerted effort with a motive of dragging the trial and simultaneously showing that they were not responsible for dragging the trial.

There is no provision in Code of Criminal Procedure prohibiting segregation of trial of that accused who is not appearing in the court and is not traceable, from the accused persons who are appearing in the court and facing trial. Rather the Code enjoins a duty on the Magistrate to conclude the trial expeditiously. Under these circumstances, it is incumbent upon the Magistrates to segregate the trial of that accused who is absconding and not appearing before the Court from the trial of those accused persons who are appearing before it. Section 299 of the Code enables the courts to examine witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution and record their depositions and such deposition may, on the arrest of such person, be given in evidence against him during trial for the offence with which he is charged, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured without an amount of delay.

Thus order dated 20th August, 2010 passed by learned MM is absolutely within jurisdiction of the trial court and there is no infirmity in the order. The petition has no force and is a frivolous petition filed deliberately by the Petitioner/ accused who intended to prolong the trial. The petition is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.