Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed criminal appeals filed by Mamman Khan, a sitting MLA from Haryana, challenging the segregation of his trial from co-accused in two FIRs related to communal violence in Nuh District. The Court held that when offences arise from the same transaction, joint trial is mandatory under Section 223(d) Cr.P.C. The trial Court had directed segregation solely because the appellant was a sitting MLA, which the Supreme Court found legally untenable. The Court emphasized that political status cannot justify deviation from statutory trial procedures and that separate trials in such circumstances would cause prejudice and violate fair trial principles. The impugned orders of the trial Court and High Court were set aside, and joint trial was directed.
Headnote
Criminal Law-- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)- Section 528-- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973-- Sections 218 and 223-- Indian Penal Code, 1860-- Sections 148, 149, 153A, 379A, 395, 397, 427, 436, 506, 201, 120B and 107-- Constitution of India, 1950-- Articles 14 and 21 -- Communal violence in large scale -- Two complaints-- Appellant/accused is sitting MLA- Complaints lodged against appellant along with other accused persons-- Ld. trial court ordered to segregate the trial qua appellant as he is sitting MLA-- Challenged before High court-- High court dismissed both petitions of appellant-- Aggrieved-- Challenged before supreme court-- Case of Ashwini Upadhyay (Supra) referred-- Prayer of appellantfor joint trial with other accused-- Unified nature of allegations- Segregation of trial ordered suo motu without affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing-- Offences committed in the course of same transaction may be charged and tried to gether-- Provisions of Sections 218 to 223 of Code referred-- No allegation that the acts attributed to the appellant arise from a distinct transaction-- Misapplication of ratio laid down in the case of Ashwini kumar Upadhyay (Supra)-- Case of Nasib Singh (Supra) referred-- No finding recorded that a joint trial would delay proceedings or cause prejudice to the appellant-- Right of fair trial-- Suo motu order of segregation of trial violates the basic principles of procedural fairness inherent in Article 21 of constitution of India-- Appellant's status as sitting MLA cannot be itself justify a separate trial-- No justification in segregation trial solely on the basis that the appellant is holding political office-- Similar role of the appellant with other co-accused-- Impugned order of segregations of trial set aside-- Direction to run trial jointly-- Appeals allowed Para-- 10, 12.1, 13.1, 14, 15, 16, 16.1, 17, 21
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of Consideration was whether the segregation of the appellant's trial from that of co-accused was legally permissible when the alleged offences arose from the same transaction
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court -- The Court held that segregation of appellant's trial from co-accused was legally impermissible -- Directed joint trial of appellant along with co-accused in accordance with law
