Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision filed by Hukumchand Onkarprasad Sharma, the original accused, against an order of remand dated 14 July 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in its appellate jurisdiction. The accused was tried by a Magistrate for eight offences, all of the same kind, in a single trial. The appellate court found that the trial court had violated Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which permits trial of only three offences of the same kind committed within a span of one year. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the trial and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh trial in accordance with law. The accused challenged this remand order, arguing that the appellate court should have quashed the proceedings entirely rather than ordering a remand. The High Court, after hearing both sides, examined the impugned judgment. It held that the appellate court was correct in finding a breach of Section 219 CrPC and that the remedy of remand was appropriate. The High Court applied the principle of 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' (the act of the court harms no one), stating that the mistake of the court should not prejudice any party. The accused's argument that there was no evidence of entrustment of property was found to be relevant only to one complainant, not all, and the High Court directed the trial court to examine the issue of entrustment for each complainant. The High Court confirmed the remand order and directed the trial court to complete the trial within six months from receipt of the writ, noting that the trial was from the year 1993. The revision was disposed of with the rule made absolute in those terms.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Trial of Offences - Section 219 CrPC - Clubbing of Offences - The trial court clubbed eight offences and tried them together, violating Section 219 CrPC which permits trial of only three offences of same kind within one year - The appellate court rightly set aside the trial and remanded for fresh trial - Held that the mistake of the court should not prejudice any party (actus curiae neminem gravabit) (Paras 2-4). B) Criminal Procedure - Remand - Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit - The appellate court's order of remand was proper as the error was by the court, not the accused - Quashing proceedings would be unjust - Held that the trial court must now try the offences in compliance with Section 219 CrPC (Paras 4-5). C) Evidence - Entrustment of Property - The appellate court found lack of entrustment only in respect of one person, not all - The trial court must examine entrustment for each complainant - Held that the issue of entrustment is to be decided afresh by the trial court (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in remanding the matter for fresh trial instead of quashing proceedings when the trial court violated Section 219 CrPC by trying eight offences together
Final Decision
The High Court confirmed the appellate court's remand order and directed the trial court to proceed with fresh trial in compliance with Section 219 CrPC, and to complete the trial within six months from receipt of the writ. The revision was disposed of with rule made absolute in those terms.
Law Points
- Section 219 CrPC limits trial to three offences of same kind within one year
- clubbing eight offences is illegal
- actus curiae neminem gravabit (act of court harms no one)
- remand for fresh trial is proper remedy
