Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The Apex Court has held in State of Punjab v. Rajesh Syal reported in (2002) 8 SCC 158, that the proviso to Sec.218 of the Cr.P.C. would apply only in a case where distinct offences for which the accused is charged are being tried before the same magistrate and where offences were being tried before different magistrates, the proviso to Sec.218 Crl.M.C.8700/16 - : 7 :-

cannot give any single magistrate the power to order transfer of cases to him from different magistrates or courts. It has also been held that in para 6 thereof that where, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one is committed, there could be joint trial, etc.

15. But it has to be borne in mind that in Sec.218 of the Cr.P.C. embodies the general rule as to the trial of accused persons which provides for separate trial of each accused person for every distinct offence and is based on the fundamental principle of criminal law that the accused person must have notice of the charge which he has to meet [See State of West Bengal v. Laisal Haque, reported in AIR 1989 SC 129 = (1989) 3 SCC 166]. The object of this Section is to ensure that the accused is not bewildered in his defence by having to meet several charges in no way connected with one another [See Queen Impress v. Fakirapa reported in (1980) 15 Bom.491]. It has also been held that the mind of the court might be prejudiced against the accused if he were tried in one trial upon different charges resting on different evidence and the object of this Section in requiring that there shall be separate trial for every charge is two-fold firstly to give the accused notice of charges and secondly to see that he is not embarrassed by having to meet charges in no way connected with one another. So the wholesome purpose behind Sec.218(1) is for protection of rights and interests of the accused.

Crl.M.C.8700/16 - : 14 :-

However, a proviso is expressly engrafted in sub section (1) of Sec. 218. which reads as follows:

distinct"S.218. of which any person is accused there shall be a separate offenceSeparate charges for distinct offences.-- (1) For every charge and every such charge shall be tried separately; writing,Provided that where the accused person, by an application in not likelysotodesiresand the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person." It provides that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person. It is also explicitly provided in sub section (2) of Sec.218 that nothing in sub-section (1) of Sec.218 shall affect the operation of the provisions of Secs. 219, 220, 221, 223, etc. It has also to be borne in mind that the provisions in the proviso to sub section (1) of Sec.218, 220(1), 219(1), etc. are only enabling provisions and it is ultimately for the court to take into account various aspects as to the convenience of the parties, as to whether it would cause unnecessary inconvenience and confusion for the parties or the court, etc. in taking common evidence in the joint trial, and more importantly as to whether it would cause any serious or substantial prejudice to the accused, etc. before taking a decision on such plea. Proviso to sub section (1) of Sec.218 will come into play only if the accused has voluntarily makes an application in writing and the magistrate is convinced that the Crl.M.C.8700/16 - : 15 :-
of the said plea, etc.

19. In the instant case, the accused is insisting for joint trial of all the four cases as otherwise it would cause serious inconvenience and harassment to her, in having to frequently attend to the court on different occasions for different cases and that this would also hamper her professional duties as a teacher. The complainant has not raised any serious objections either before the trial court or before this Court, against the said plea of the accused. The trial court in the impugned order has no case that joint trial would cause any prejudice to the accused or that it would cause confusion by taking common evidence. The parties in all the four complaints are the same. Even the trial court finds that 3 out of the 4 complaints, could be jointly tried. The only ground on which the trial court has partially rejected the plea for joint trial of the fourth complaint along with the other 3 complaints, is that Sec.219 of the Cr.P.C. would allow joint trial of cases not exceeding 3. The petitioner has placed reliance only on the provisions contained in Sec. 220(1) of the Cr.P.C., in the impugned order. But the learned Magistrate has omitted to consider the applicability of Sec. 220(1) and Sec. 218(1) proviso of the Cr.P.C., which do not place any restrictions on the number of offences. Since the petitioner accused is insisting for joint trial, even the provision in Sec. 218(1) proviso could be pressed into service, which does not insist for sameness of the transactions. Since Crl.M.C.8700/16 - : 20 :-