Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sanjeev Singh vs State on 2 May, 2022
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1007/2017
Shri Ajay Kumar Son Of Shri Dilip Singh, R/o Chandurwali
Dhani, 10Ftp, Tehsil Tibi, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 566/2017
Ghanshyam Saini S/o Boduram Saini, R/o Sanwar, Tehsil Kekri,
District Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 687/2017
Banveer Singh S/o Sh. Fauja Singh @ Bhoja Singh, By Caste
Rajput, Resident Of Village Kachhola, Police Station Kachhola,
District Bhilwara Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 801/2017
Vinod Kumar Bhalla S/o Shri Gur Dayal Bhalla, Resident Of 81,
Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 802/2017
Lal Chand Ojha S/o Shri Fagun Das Ojha, Resident Of Ii/c-266,
M.d. Vyas Colony Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 804/2017
Vinod Kumar Bhalla S/o Shri Gur Dayal Bhalla, Resident Of 81,
Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar.
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(2 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 805/2017
Lal Chand Ojha S/o Shri Fagun Das Ojha, Resident Of Ii/c-266,
M.d. Vyas Colony Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 820/2017
Suraj Pal Balmiki S/o Shri Paras Ram Balmiki, Resident Of 5/18
Civil Lines, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 821/2017
Vinod Kumar Bhalla S/o Shri Gur Dayal Bhalla, Resident Of 81,
Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 822/2017
Lal Chand Ojha S/o Shri Fagun Das Ojha, Resident Of Ii/c-266,
M.d. Vyas Colony Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 826/2017
Vinod Kumar Bhalla S/o Shri Gur Dayal Bhalla, Resident Of 81,
Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 827/2017
Vinod Kumar Bhalla S/o Shri Gur Dayal Bhalla, Resident Of 81,
Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar.
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(3 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 828/2017
Suraj Pal Balmiki S/o Shri Paras Ram Balmiki, Resident Of 5/18
Civil Lines, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 829/2017
Suraj Pal Balmiki S/o Shri Paras Ram Balmiki, Resident Of 5/18
Civil Lines, Sri Ganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 830/2017
Lal Chand Ojha S/o Shri Fagun Das Ojha, Resident Of Ii/c-266,
M.d. Vyas Colony Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 831/2017
Lal Chand Ojha S/o Shri Fagun Das Ojha, Resident Of Ii/c-266,
M.d. Vyas Colony Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 844/2017
Shri Vijay Peshwani Son Of Shri Bhagwan Das Peshwani, R/o 26
Sawan Colony, Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 845/2017
Shri Chetan Prakash Son Of Shri Bhagwan Das Peshwani, R/o
141 Sdm Colony, Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh.
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(4 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 846/2017
Bhan Singh S/o Shri Kripal Singh, By Caste Jat Sikh, Resident Of
Sardarpura Khalsa, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Its P.p.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 847/2017
Lal Nath S/o Shri Khetpal Nath, By Caste Nath, Resident Of
Ward No. 18, Near Allahbad Bank, Suratgarh, District Sri
Ganganagar, At Present R/o Chak 20 B.d., Tehsil Khajuwala,
District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Its P.p.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 849/2017
Lal Chand Ojha S/o Shri Fagun Das Ojha, Resident Of Ii/c-266,
M.d. Vyas Colony Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 852/2017
Suraj Pal Balmiki S/o Shri Paras Ram Balmiki, Resident Of 5/18
Civil Lines, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 853/2017
Vinod Kumar Bhalla S/o Shri Gur Dayal Bhalla, Resident Of 81,
Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 854/2017
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(5 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
Rajendra Shekhar Makkar S/o Shri Jagjit Lal Makkar, Resident Of
11/57, G.a.d. Flats, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 860/2017
Vinod Kumar Bhalla S/o Shri Gur Dayal Bhalla, Resident Of 81,
Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 861/2017
Lal Chand Ojha S/o Shri Fagun Das Ojha, Resident Of Ii/c-266,
M.d. Vyas Colony Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 865/2017
Lal Chand Ojha S/o Shri Fagun Das Ojha, Resident Of Ii/c-266,
M.d. Vyas Colony Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 866/2017
Vinod Kumar Bhalla S/o Shri Gur Dayal Bhalla, Resident Of 81,
Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 875/2017
1. Girdhari Lal S/o Jethmal, By
Caste Gaur Brahmin, Resident
Of- Hospital Road, Makrana,
District Nagaur.
2. Ramavatar S/o Surajmal, By
Caste Maheshwari, Resident Of-
Borawad, Makrana, District
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(6 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
Nagaur.
3. Surendra Kumar S/o
Ramkishore Gupta, By Caste
Agarwal, Resident Of- Gehlot
Colony, Makrana, District
Nagaur.
4. Beni Prasad S/o Ramkishore
Gupta, By Caste Agarwal,
Resident Of- Mangal Bhawan,
Jagat Colony, Makrana, District
Nagaur.
5. Abdul Sattar S/o Bashir
Ahmed, By Caste Muslim,
Resident Of- Ward No. 7,
Makrana, District Nagaur.
6. Farhan Ahmed S/o Gulam
Farid, By Caste Muslim,
Resident Of- Mohalla Guwad,
Makrana, District Nagaur.
----Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through The Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 876/2017
Suraj Pal Balmiki S/o Shri Paras Ram Balmiki, Resident Of 5/18
Civil Lines, Sri Ganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 877/2017
Vinod Kumar Bhalla S/o Shri Gur Dayal Bhalla, Resident Of 81,
Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 878/2017
Lal Chand Ojha S/o Shri Fagun Das Ojha, Resident Of Ii/c-266,
M.d. Vyas Colony Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(7 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 879/2017
Rajendra Shekhar Makkar S/o Shri Jagjit Lal Makkar, Resident Of
11/57, G.a.d. Flats, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1006/2017
Shri Ajay Kumar Son Of Shri Nathuram, R/o Chandurwali Dhani,
10Ftp, Tehsil Tibi, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1008/2017
1. Chandra Shekhar Jha S/o Sh.
Ramesh Chandra Jha, By Caste
Brahamin R/o C-33
Shastrinagar Bikaner.
2. Vikalp Jha @ Sonu S/o Sh.
Mahesh Jha, By Caste
Brahamin R/o C-33
Shastrinagar Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1009/2017
Sanjeev Gupta S/o Satish Kumar Gupta, By Caste Agarwal R/o
73, K-Block, P.s. Jhawaharnagar, Dist. Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1010/2017
Ram Singh S/o Shri Lalchand, By Caste - Jat, Resident Of 6 Msr
Sardar Gadhiya, Hanumangarh, District - Hanumangarh
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(8 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1011/2017
1. Sagarmal S/o Sh. Todar Ram,
Resident Of Khud Dataramgarh,
Tehsil- Ramgarh, P.s. Losal,
District Sikar Raj.
2. Jawahar Ram S/o Sh. Ganga
Bux, Resident Of Losal, P.s.
Chitawa, District Sikar Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1012/2017
Ranjeet Singh S/o Thana Singh, B/c Sikh, R/o 14 P.b.m.
Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1013/2017
Dharmendra Nehra S/o Shri Nandlal, B/c Jat, R/o Nehra Farm
House, Pilani, District Jhunjhunu Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1014/2017
Chet Ram S/o Shri Malu Ram Matoria, By Caste Jat, Resident Of
Village Rampura Matoria, Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1015/2017
Sanjeev Singh S/o Mangu Singh, By Caste Rajput R/o Plot
No.100 G-1 Neminagar, Vaishalinagar Dist. Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.904/2017
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(9 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
Sanjeev Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.662/2016
Darshan Singh & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.871/2016
Satpal
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.872/2016
Sharda
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.568/2017
Prabhu Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.569/2017
Kana Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.686/2017
Shanker Lal & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.712/2017
Randeep Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(10 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.812/2017
Suraj Pal Balmiki
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.813/2017
Vinod Kumar Bhalla
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.814/2017
Lal Chand Ojha
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.815/2017
Rajendra Shekhar Makkar
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.817/2017
Suraj Pal Balmiki
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.818/2017
Vinod Kumar Bhalla
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.819/2017
Lal Chand Ojha
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.905/2017
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(11 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
Harjindra Singh & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.906/2017
Shivchand & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.975/2017
Chandra Shekhar Jha
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.976/2017
Chandra Shekhar Jha
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.977/2017
Sanjeev Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.982/2017
Omprakash
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.983/2017
Sanjeev Gupta
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.984/2017
Chandra Shekhar
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(12 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.985/2017
Ahmed Noor Khan @ Captain
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.986/2017
Surendra Singh & Anr.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.987/2017
Sanjeev
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.988/2017
Ashish
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.989/2017
Chandra Shekhar Jha
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.990/2017
Badri Prasad
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.991/2017
Shishram & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1096/2017
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(13 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
Mohd. Salim
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1117/2017
Hanuman Ram & Anr.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1169/2017
Altaf Hussain & Anr.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1297/2017
Ramesh Kumar Baladia
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1397/2017
Ashok Khandelwal & Ors.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1488/2017
Jagdish Prasad Bunker
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.478/2018
Ashok Pal Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.640/2019
Ashok Bishnoi
----Petitioner
Versus
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(14 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. CS Kotwani
Mr. Rakesh Arora
Mr. Avinash Bhati
Mr. Harshit Bhurani
Mr. DS Gharsana
Mr. Rajendra Charan
Mr. Umesh Shrimali
Mr. MR Choudhary
Mr. Ashok Kumar for
Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Trilok Joshi &
Mr. Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
02/05/2022
In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread
of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being
maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety
of all concerned.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that since complete format
of FIR is of similar irregularities regarding arms license and the
allegations form such an act of petitioners, which are in violation
of law, therefore, it amounts to similar transactions and the Court
may grant indulgence to the extent of consolidation of trial.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that it shall be in the
interest of justice and in given circumstance the consolidation
shall save petitioners from multiplicity of litigation and
extraordinary consumption of time during the litigation.
Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits
that all the connected cases belong to the District Ganganagar,
and that the offences therein are also of a similar nature, and a
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(15 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
direction to hear the cases together in the learned Court below
would be in the interest of justice, as it would be to the
convenience of the concerned authorities and the Court to hear
the matters together.
Learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the consolidation.
This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander and
Ors. (2012) 9 SCC 460 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, with
regard to the exercise of a High Court's inherent powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C, observed asunder:
"The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be
exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or
proprietary of an order passed by the trial court or the inferior
court, as the case may be. Though the section does not
specifically use the expression 'prevent abuse of process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice', the
jurisdiction under Section 397 is a very limited one. The
legality, proprietary or correctness of an order passed by a
court is the very foundation of exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 397 but ultimately it also requires justice to be done.
The jurisdiction could be exercised where there is palpable
error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision
is completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is
exercised arbitrarily. On the other hand, Section 482 is based
upon the maxim quando lex liquid alicuiconcedit, conceder
videtur id quo res ipsa esse non protest, i.e., when the law
gives anything to anyone, it also gives all those things without
which the thing itself would be unavoidable. The Section
confers very wide power on the Court to do justice and to
ensure that the process of the Court is not permitted to be
abused.
It may be somewhat necessary to have a
comparative examination of the powers exercisable by the
Court under these two provisions. There may be some
overlapping between these two powers because both are
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(16 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
aimed at securing the ends of justice and both have an
element of discretion. But, at the same time, inherent power
under Section 482 of the Code being an extraordinary and
residuary power, it is inapplicable in regard to matters which
are specifically provided for under other provisions of the
Code. To put it simply, normally the court may not invoke its
power under Section 482 of the Code where a party could
have availed of the remedy available under Section 397 of the
Code itself. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code are of a wide magnitude and are not as limited as the
power under Section 397. Section 482 can be invoked
where the order in question is neither an interlocutory
order within the meaning of Section 397(2) nor a final
order in the strict sense. Reference in this regard can be
made to Raj Kapoor and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
MANU/SC/0210/1979 : AIR 1980 SC 258 : (1980) 1 SCC
43]}. In this very case, this Court has observed that
inherent power under Section 482 may not be exercised
if the bar under Sections 397(2) and 397(3) applies,
except in extraordinary situations, to prevent abuse of
the process of the Court. This itself shows the fine
distinction between the powers exercisable by the Court under
these two provisions. In this very case, the Court also
considered as to whether the inherent powers of the High
Court under Section 482 stand repelled when the revisional
power under Section 397 overlaps. Rejecting the argument,
the Court said that the opening words of Section 482
contradict this contention because nothing in the Code,
not even Section 397, can affect the amplitude of the
inherent powers preserved in so many terms by the
language of Section 482. There is no total ban on the
exercise of inherent powers where abuse of the process
of the Court or any other extraordinary situation invites
the court's jurisdiction. The limitation is self-restraint,
nothing more. The distinction between a final and
interlocutory order is well known in law. The orders which will
be free from the bar of Section 397(2) would be the orders
which are not purely interlocutory but, at the same time, are
less than a final disposal. They should be the orders which do
determine some right and still are not finally rendering the
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(17 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
Court functus officio of the lis. The provisions of Section 482
are pervasive. It should not subvert legal interdicts written
into the same Code but, however, inherent powers of the
Court unquestionably have to be read and construed as free of
restriction."
The Criminal Procedure Code does not specifcally speak of
consolidation of trials but the same can be done under the
inherent powers of the Court flowing from Section 482 of the
Code. Unless specifically prohibited, the Criminal Court has
inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to
secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process
of the Court.
This Court also takes note of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Court in the case of Nasib Singh Vs. The State of
Punjab and Ors. (2022) 2 SCC 89 wherein the following
observations were made:-
" Section 239(d) of the old Code which corresponds to
Section 223(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was
interpreted by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of
Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao MANU/SC/
0070/1963 : AIR 1963 SC 1850 by juxtaposing the
provision with Section 225(1) of the old Code, which is
Section 219(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. In that
case, two Respondents along with two others were tried
together for offences under the Penal Code. The High Court
set aside the convictions on the ground that inter alia the
joint trial of two or more offences committed by each of
them is illegal. Justice Mudholkar speaking for the Bench
observed that the phrase "offence committed in the course
of the same transaction" would mean offences that are
committed in the proximity of time or place, or unity of
purpose and design:
...Whether a transaction can be regarded as
the same would necessarily depend upon the
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(18 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
particular facts of each case and it seems to us to be
a difficult task to undertake a definition of that which
the Legislature has deliberately left undefined. We
have not come across a single decision of any Court
which has embarked upon the difficult task of
defining the expression. But it is generally thought
that where there is proximity of time or place or
unity of purpose and design or continuity of action in
respect of a series of acts, it may be possible to infer
that they form part of the same transaction. It is,
however, not necessary that every one of these
elements should co-exist for a transaction to be
regarded as the same. But if several acts
committed by a person show a unity of purpose
or design that would be a, strong circumstance
to indicate that those acts form part of the
same transaction...
The judgment therefore lays down three significant
principles on joint trials:
(i) A separate trial is not contrary to law even if a joint
trial for the offences along with other offences is
permissible;
(ii) The possibility of a joint trial has to be decided at
the beginning of the trial and not on the basis of the
result of the trial; and
(iii) The true test is whether any prejudice has
been sustained as a result of a separate trial. In
other words, a retrial with a direction of a joint
trial would be ordered only if there is a failure of
justice.
In Essar Teleholdings Limited v. Central Bureau of
Investigation MANU/SC/1084/2015 : (2015) 10 SCC 562,
Justice R.F. Nariman, speaking for a threeJudge Bench
reiterated the principles which have been enunciated in
Chandra Bhal (supra). Further, it was held that even if the
conditions stipulated in Section 223 Code of Criminal
Procedure to conduct a joint trial have been fulfilled, it may
not be desirous.
From the decisions of this Court on joint trial and separate
trials, the following principles can be formulated:
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(19 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
(i) Section 218 provides that separate trials shall be
conducted for distinct offences alleged to be committed by a
person. Sections 219-221 provide exceptions to this general
rule. If a person falls under these exceptions, then a joint
trial for the offences which a person is charged with may be
conducted. Similarly, Under Section 223, a joint trial may
be held for persons charged with different offences if any of
the clauses in the provision are separately or on a
combination satisfied;
(ii) While applying the principles enunciated in Sections
218-223 on conducting joint and separate trials, the trial
court should apply a two-pronged test, namely, (i) whether
conducting a joint/separate trial will prejudice the defence
of the Accused; and/or (ii) whether conducting a
joint/separate trial would cause judicial delay.
(iii) The possibility of conducting a joint trial will have to be
determined at the beginning of the trial and not after the
trial based on the result of the trial. The Appellate Court
may determine the validity of the argument that there
ought to have been a separate/joint trial only based on
whether the trial had prejudiced the right of Accused or the
prosecutrix;
(iv) Since the provisions which engraft an exception use the
phrase 'may' with reference to conducting a joint trial, a
separate trial is usually not contrary to law even if a joint
trial could be conducted, unless proven to cause a
miscarriage of justice; and
(v) A conviction or acquittal of the Accused cannot be set
aside on the mere ground that there was a possibility of a
joint or a separate trial. To set aside the order of conviction
or acquittal, it must be proved that the rights of the parties
were prejudiced because of the joint or separate trial, as
the case may be."
This Court finds, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for
the revisionist-petitioner, that the matters listed together before
this Court, with regard to the issue pertaining to the arms
licensing, are of similar nature and design; furthermore, all the
cases fall within the jurisdiction of the courts at Ganganagar
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:38 AM)
(20 of 20) [CRLR-1007/2017]
District. The tagging of all the matters for their analogous hearing,
would therefore cater to the general convenience of all the parties
and the concerned authorities, and the learned Court below.
Furthermore, this Court also finds that if the same is done, it
would cause no prejudice to either of the parties herein, as per the
principle of law laid down in Nasib Singh (supra).
This Court, therefore, in the interest of justice, and in light of the
observations made herein above, directs the learned Court below
to consolidate the trials of the present matters for analogous
hearing, to meet the ends of justice; apart therefrom, it would
also save the concerned parties from multiplicity of proceedings,
delay and expenses; this would also make the exercise of
adducing evidence in the trials, convenient for all the concerned
parties, and also enable the Court to have a better overview of the
issues involved therein. The necessary orders shall accordingly be
passed by the learned court below, strictly accordance with law.
However, it is made clear that the aforesaid order for joinder
of trials shall not operate where the accused concerned is facing
trial under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present
petitions stand disposed of. All pending applications also stand
disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
107-nirmala/Sanjay-
.
(Downloaded on 26/12/2022 at 03:16:39 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)