Summary
The trial court, of its own motion and without hearing the appellant, a sitting MLA accused in FIRs arising from the 2023 Nuh communal violence, directed a separate charge-sheet and separate trial for him, citing day-to-day trial of legislators' cases and co-accused's non-appearance. The Supreme Court quashed the segregation and directed a joint trial: the prosecution alleged one conspiracy on common evidence, political office alone is no ground for separate trial, and the order was passed without notice in breach of Articles 14 and 21.
Issues
- Whether the trial of an accused can be segregated from that of co-accused, and a separate charge-sheet directed, solely because he is a sitting MLA whose case must be expedited under the directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
- Whether the segregation, ordered suo motu without notice or an application, was consistent with Sections 218 to 223 CrPC and the right to a fair trial.
- Whether the trial court could direct the police to file a separate charge-sheet against the appellant.
Provisions considered
- Sections 218 to 223, in particular Section 223(d), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Separate trial for distinct offences is the general rule, with Sections 219 to 223 permitting joint trial; persons accused of different offences in the same transaction may be tried together. Applying the two-pronged test of prejudice and delay from Nasib Singh, the Court found no lawful ground for segregation where the case rested on a common conspiracy and common evidence. (¶¶ 13, 13.1, 14, 16, 16.1, 16.2, 22)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaFair trial is part of Article 21; a segregation order passed without notice or hearing violated procedural fairness, and speedy trial cannot be secured at the cost of fairness. (¶¶ 17, 18, 21, 22)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaAll accused are equal before the law; segregating the appellant's trial solely on account of his political office was arbitrary classification. (¶¶ 21, 23, 23.1)
Held
- Under Sections 218 to 223 CrPC separate trial is the rule and joint trial is permissible where the statutory conditions, such as offences in the same transaction, are met; the choice is for the court at the outset, for cogent reasons, considering mainly prejudice to the accused and delay or waste of judicial time. Evidence recorded in one trial cannot be imported into another. (¶¶ 13, 13.1, 16)
- The directions in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay call for expeditious disposal of cases against MPs and MLAs through allocation to designated courts; they confer no procedural disadvantage on an accused legislator and do not authorise departure from the legal norms on joint trials. (¶¶ 15, 21, 23.1)
- Where delay is caused by non-appearance of some co-accused, the proper course is to separate the absent or defaulting accused, not an accused who regularly attends; the trial court inverted this principle and recorded no finding that a joint trial would cause delay or prejudice. (¶ 16.1)
- A segregation order passed suo motu, without notice or any application by the prosecution, breached natural justice and Article 21; the mere presence of the appellant's counsel when the order was passed was not a meaningful opportunity of hearing, and subsequent filing of charge-sheets, framing of charges and recording of evidence did not cure the illegality. (¶¶ 12.1, 17, 18, 19)
- The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing the police to file a separate charge-sheet, since that discretion lies with the investigating agency. (¶ 20)
- As the prosecution relied on an overarching conspiracy and identical evidence against all accused, separate trials would mean recalling the same witnesses, duplication, delay and risk of inconsistent findings; segregating the appellant solely because of his political office was unsustainable and violated Articles 14 and 21. (¶¶ 9, 14, 21, 22, 23, 23.1)
Result
Appeals disposed of. The trial court's orders dated 28.08.2024 and 02.09.2024 and the High Court's judgment dated 12.12.2024 set aside; the direction for a separate charge-sheet and the segregation of the appellant's trial quashed; matter remitted for a joint trial with the co-accused, the trial court being free to regulate the schedule for expeditious disposal after hearing all parties.