Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shaikh Shakil, was one of 14 accused in R.C.C. No. 93/2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir, for offences under sections 143, 353, 341, 427, 332 of the Indian Penal Code and section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The case was originally registered against 75-100 unknown persons, but only 14 were chargesheeted in 2008. Since then, only the petitioner and two or three others attended court; the remaining accused absented themselves, causing the trial to stall. On 04.12.2012, the petitioner applied (Exhibit 43) for separation of his trial, to which the Assistant Public Prosecutor had no objection. However, the Magistrate rejected the application on 03.12.2013. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court noted that neither the Additional Public Prosecutor nor the Investigating Officer objected to separation. The court held that when the prosecution has no objection and the accused is willing to face trial, separation is necessary to avoid indefinite delay and ensure speedy justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the Magistrate was directed to proceed with the trial against the petitioner separately, while issuing process against the other accused.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Separation of Trial - Section 239 CrPC - Speedy Trial - Petitioner, one of 14 accused in a case, sought separation of trial as other accused were not attending court, causing delay - Magistrate rejected application despite prosecution's no objection - High Court held that when prosecution has no objection and accused is willing to face trial, separation is necessary to avoid indefinite delay and ensure speedy justice - Impugned order set aside, trial directed to proceed separately against petitioner (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial of an accused can be separated from other absconding accused to ensure speedy trial when the prosecution has no objection.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 03.12.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir, is set aside. The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial against the petitioner separately and to issue process against the other accused who have not been attending the court.
Law Points
- Separation of trial under Section 239 CrPC
- Right to speedy trial
- Article 227 jurisdiction
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (02) 52
Criminal Writ Petition No. 85 of 2014
Mr. Ram S. Shinde (for Petitioner), Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar (APP for Respondents)
Shaikh Shakil S/o Shaikh Mohammad
The State of Maharashtra, The Police Inspector, Udgir City Police Station
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the Magistrate's order rejecting application for separation of trial.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought separation of his trial from other accused who were not attending court, to enable speedy trial.
Filing Reason
The Magistrate rejected the petitioner's application for separation of trial despite prosecution's no objection, causing indefinite delay.
Previous Decisions
The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udgir, by order dated 03.12.2013, rejected the petitioner's application (Exhibit 43) for separation of trial.
Issues
Whether the trial of an accused can be separated from other absconding accused to ensure speedy trial when the prosecution has no objection.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he has been attending court regularly since 2008, but the trial is stalled due to non-appearance of other accused, and separation is necessary for speedy justice.
Prosecution had no objection to separation of trial.
Ratio Decidendi
When the prosecution has no objection to separation of trial and the accused is willing to face trial, the court should allow separation to avoid indefinite delay and ensure the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
Neither the learned Additional Public Prosecutor nor the respondent no.2 has any objection for separating the trial of the petitioner and for proceeding with the case.
The petitioner has been attending the Court on all the dates of hearing. However, as the other accused do not remain present, the case is not proceeding further.
Procedural History
The case was registered in 2008 against 75-100 unknown persons; chargesheet filed against 14 accused. Petitioner applied for separation of trial on 04.12.2012; application rejected on 03.12.2013. Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 85 of 2014 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and allowed on 10.02.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 143, 353, 341, 427, 332
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 135
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 239
- Constitution of India, 1950: 227
