Judgment Case ID: 5425

Judgment:
Criminal Appeal No. 361 of 1987. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3. 1986 of the Karnataka High Court in Crl. P.C. No. 69 of 1986. P.R. Ramasesh	 Adv. for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN	 J. The question involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the High Court of Karnataka was justified in directing the Sessions Judge	 Bidar to proceed with the trial of Sessions Case No. 23 of 1984 insofar as it relates to the respondent Narsa Reddy and one Vaijinath	 accused No. 2	 arraigned for having committed alleged offences punisha ble under sections 302 and 201 both read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code	 1860 and sections 3 and 4 of the . While issuing notice	 we were not satisfied about the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Single Judge which had the effect of splitting up of the trial although the prosecution case against the accused arose out of the same incident and the evidence to be led by the prosecution against them was more or less common. It also seemed to us that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge were to be implemented	 the learned Sessions Judge would be constrained to proceed against the respondent and accused No. 2 Vaijinath and thereby the very object of directing de novo trial would be frustrated. At the hearing	 no one appeared for the respondent and therefore we did not have the benefit of hearing his counsel. The prosecution case	 in brief	 is as follows. On Febru ary 14	 1984	 at about 7 p.m.	 the respondent Narsa Reddy pushed his wife the deceased Jagdamba into a well situate in his garden to cause her death and he then with the help of accused No. 2	 Vaijinath pulled her out of 970 the well and brought her to the house of the respondent where he assaulted her with a stick and thereafter strangu lated her to death. After the committal	 the Sessions case was posted for evidence and evidence of four witnesses was recorded. The testimony of PW 3 Sangareddy and PW 4 Ran gareddy revealed the involvement of Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John	 who were cited as prosecution witnesses	 in the disposal of the dead body of the deceased	 that they had also committed the offence under section 20 1 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with the other two accused. An application was accordingly filed by the learned Public Prosecutor under section 319(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for impleading Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John as accused Nos. 3 and 4 in the Ses sions case. On the said application	 the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated August 22	 1985 ordered that Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John be impleaded as accused Nos. 3 and 4 for the offence under section 201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He also ordered that a de novo trial would be held against the accused persons after reframing charges. Before the trial could proceed further	 the newly impleaded accused Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application before the learned Sessions Judge contending that they could not be impleaded as accused and that since they were public servants	 sanction under section 197 of the Code was required for their prosecution. The application of accused Nos. 3 and 4 was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on October 28	 1985. Thereupon	 Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John	 impleaded as accused Nos. 3 and 4	 preferred a revision being Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985 before the High Court. The High Court has admitted the revision and granted stay of proceedings in the Sessions case. In the meanwhile	 the respondent Narsa Reddy who had been arrayed as accused No. 1 made an application for bail under section 439(1) before the learned Sessions Judge contending that in view of the stay order granted by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985	 the trial of the Sessions case was unduly protracted and hence he should be released on bail	 apart from the ground that no prima facie case has been made out against him. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated September 25	 1985 rejected the application on the ground that earlier similar applications for bail were rejected both by him as well as the High Court and it could not be said that the trial was protracted	 merely because of stay granted by the High Court	 observing that the case was likely to be con cluded at an early date. Aggrieved	 the respondent preferred a revision before the High Court. The learned Single Judge by his order 971 dated March 28	 1985 rejected the application for bail under section 439( 1 ) of the Code	 vacated the stay granted by the High Court in Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985 insofar as the trial against the respondent and the aforesaid Vaiji nath	 accused No. 2 was concerned and directed the learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial against them as early as possible. Hence this appeal by special leave. We have no manner of doubt that the direction made by the learned Single Judge presumably exercising the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Crimi nal Procedure was wholly unwarranted. It is somewhat strange that the learned Single Judge should have made a direction at all requiring the learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial as against the respondent and accused No. 2	 Vaijinath merely because there was stay granted by the High Court in revision preferred by the co accused Head Constable Govinda Rao and Police Constable John	 accused Nos. 3 and 4 against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated October 28	 1985 rejecting the objection as to the validity of trial for want of sanction. If he felt that the grant of stay would prejudicially affect the respondent and accused No. 2	 Vaijinath and subject them to a protracted trial	 the proper course for the learned Single Judge was to have heard and disposed of the Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985 rather than make a direction of this kind which would	 in fact	 result in splitting up of the trial which is apt to cause miscarriage of justice	 besides serious prejudice to the prosecution. From the nature of the prosecution case	 it is quite apparent that the evidence to be led by the prosecu tion would be more or less common as it relates to the same occurrence. It could not be said that merely because the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge were held up due to stay granted by the High Court in that revision	 the learned Single Judge could have taken recourse to the inher ent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code	 or that it was necessary to do so either to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Any further delay in the trial could be prevented by taking up the revision for hearing. In the result	 the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the High Court is directed to hear and dispose of Criminal Revision No. 886 of 1985 as early as possible. In the meanwhile	 the proceedings in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1984 before the learned Sessions Judge shall remain stayed till the disposal of the revision. H.L.C. Appeal allowed.

Summary:
While the respondent	 alongwith another person	 was being tried under sections 302 and 201 read with section 34 I.P.C.	 etc.	 for causing the death of his wife	 the evidence re corded revealed the involvement of two police officials in the disposal of the dead body	 and	 they were also charged under section 201 read with section 34 I.P.C. and the trial was or dered to be held de novo against all the four accused. However	 the trial could not proceed as the two police officials whose plea that	 being public servants	 it was necessary to obtain a sanction for prosecution under section 197 Cr. P.C. for impleading them as accused	 was rejected	 approached the High Court in Revision and obtained stay of the trial. The respondent applied for bail under section 439(1)	 Cr. P.C. contending that the trial was unduly protracted	 and on its rejection	 approached the High Court in Revision. A Single Judge of the High Court rejected the application for bail	 vacated the stay granted by the High Court earlier insofar as the respondent and the other person who was originally accused with him was concerned and directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial as against them only. Allowing the appeal	 and	 directing continuance of stay of the trial till the disposal of the Revision filed by the two police officials	 HELD: It is somewhat strange that the learned Single Judge should have made a direction at all requiring the learned Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial as against the respondent and the other accused merely because there was stay granted by the High Court in the Revision preferred by the two police officials. If he felt that the stay would prejudicially affect the respondent and the other accused and subject them to a protracted trial	 the proper course was to have heard and disposed of the Revision filed by the two police officials rather than make a direction of this kind which would	 result in the splitting up of the trial and is apt to cause miscarriage of justice	 besides serious pre 969 judice to the prosecution. From the nature of the prosecu tion case	 it is quite apparent that the evidence to be led by the prosecution would be more or less common as it re lates to the same occurrence. It could not be said that merely because the proceedings were held up due to stay granted by the High Court the learned Single Judge could have taken recourse to the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482	 Cr. P.C.	 or that it was necessary to do so either to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. [971C F]