http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE OF KARNATAKA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NARSA REDDY

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/08/1987

BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) RAY, B.C. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 2104            1987 SCR  (3) 968  1987 SCC  (4) 170        JT 1987 (3)   382  1987 SCALE  (2)337  CITATOR INFO :  R          1989 SC 129  (10)

ACT:     Criminal  Procedure Code,  1973--s.482--Inherent  Powers of  High  Court--Power cannot be exercised so  as  to  split trial  of accused which is apt to cause miscarriage of  jus- tice and serious prejudice to prosecution.

HEADNOTE:     While  the  respondent, alongwith  another  person,  was being  tried under ss. 302 and 201 read with s.  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  s. 201 read with s. 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 s.  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 s.  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

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  s. 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]

JUDGMENT:     CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: 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 ss. 302 and 201 both read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal  Code, 1860 and ss. 3 and 4 of the  Dowry  Prohibition Act, 1961.     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 s. 20 1  read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with the other two accused. An application was accordingly filed by the learned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Public  Prosecutor under s. 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 s.  201  read with s. 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 s. 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 s. 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 s.  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 s. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

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 s. 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. 972