Manoharlal Lohe (Applicant) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Name: Manoharlal Lohe (Applicant) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (Non-applicant).

Citations:  1981 MP LJ 359 , 1981 Cri LJ 1563

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur)

Bench: M.D. Bhatt

Date of Judgment:   November 3, 1980

Legal Provision Related to the Case: Section 218(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Facts of the case

 The accused was charged with four criminal cases against him, each under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.  The trial court had recorded the oral evidence of all four cases in only one case and filed carbon copies or retyped statements of the ones recorded in the remaining cases. The defence evidence of one witness was also recorded in one case only, and the copies were filed in the other cases. However, the examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code was done separately in each case. As for the judgement purposes 4 cases were clubbed together and the sentences were passed accordingly. The appeals court quashed the convictions and sentences as passed by the trial court in all four cases and remanded them for recording evidence afresh and disposing of each case separately. The accused appealed against this decision.

Issues raised before the Court:

1. Whether the trial court acted illegally in consolidating all the four cases and recording common evidence in all the cases, in contravention of section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. Whether the lower appellate court erred in quashing the order of convictions and sentences passed by the trial court in all the four cases and remanding the cases for recording evidence afresh and disposing of each case separately.

Arguments of the Applicant:

The learned counsel for the applicant-accused argued that the Order of remand passed by the lower appellate court is unjust and improper. The consolidation of all four cases had been done by the trial court with the implicit consent of both sides, and no objections were raised in the matter of any illegality or irregularity in the procedure for trial. The applicant-accused had never made any grievance in the trial court or during appeals regarding any prejudice caused to him in the trial of the four cases against him because of the consolidation of the cases.

The learned counsel further argues that no prejudice has been caused to the accused by the recording of all evidence for all four cases in one case, and the evidence recorded in case No. 348 of 1977 should be read as evidence for the other three cases as well.

Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which enforces that for every distinct offense, there should be a separate charge and trial. However, the proviso to this subsection provides an exception where the accused person, by an application in writing, desires a joint trial, and the magistrate is of the opinion that such a joint trial will not cause prejudice to the accused. In this case, no application for joint trial was made, and the trial magistrate did not record any opinion that such a joint trial would not cause prejudice to the accused. Nonetheless, this defect is curable under section 465 of the Code, in the absence of failure of justice.

Overall, the learned counsel for the applicant-accused is arguing that the consolidation of the four cases in the trial court was with the accused’s consent, and no prejudice has been caused to him. The court is considering the arguments presented and discussing the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding separate trials and joint trials.

• Judgment:

The judge considers the arguments and observes that while there were four distinct offenses, for each of which a separate trial had been launched in the trial court, the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides an exception where the accused person, by an application in writing, desires a joint trial, and the magistrate is of the opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby. The judge notes that in the present case, no such application in writing was made by the applicant-accused, nor is the trial magistrate found to have recorded his opinion anywhere that such joint trial was not likely to cause prejudice to the accused.

The judge further notes that the law is settled that in a separate trial, not only are the charges separate from any other trial against the accused, but the recording of evidence and every other proceeding in such trial is to be separate, and the evidence recorded in one trial cannot be used in the other. However, this defect is curable under section 465 of the Code in the absence of failure of justice.

The judge upholds the order of remand passed

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the application of the applicant-accused seeking to quash the order of remand passed by the lower appellate court. The court held that even though there were four distinct offenses with separate charges, the consolidation of all four cases by the trial court was done with the implicit consent of both sides, and the applicant-accused had never raised any objection to it. However, since the applicant-accused did not make an application in writing for a joint trial, nor did the trial magistrate record his opinion that the joint trial was not likely to cause prejudice to the accused, the consolidation of the cases was a defect. Nevertheless, the court found that this defect was curable under section 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code, provided that there was no failure of justice. Therefore, the court refused to quash the order of remand and allowed the trial to proceed.

written by Bhavika Adwani intern under legal vidhiya

Admin