In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court declared that the division of a trial under Section 317(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), 1973 is impermissible when a concurrent further investigation has been initiated. The ruling emphasized that such a division is also barred in the absence of a non-traceable certificate from the investigating agency.
Section 317(2) of the Cr.P.C. states, “If the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately.”
The case brought before the Supreme Court involved an appeal against the Madras High Court’s judgment, which had granted a Criminal Revision petition, resulting in the trial being split under Section 317(2) of the Cr.P.C. The matter pertained to property damages and offenses under various sections, including Sections 395, 397, 212, 120B, and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property Damages Act, involving 31 accused individuals.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, highlighted the failure of the High Court to consider the reasons recorded by the Magistrate and the prior permission for further investigation granted on February 13, 2019. The court ruled that the High Court could not have allowed the trial’s splitting at that particular stage.
The origins of the case trace back to 2016 during the demonetization period. The petitioner alleged that he was deceived into exchanging old notes for new ones, resulting in a monetary loss and subsequent police complaint. Suspecting collusion between the investigating officer and certain accused individuals, the petitioner reported the matter to the Superintendent of Police.
Upon learning of the petitioner’s concerns, the Investigating officer hastily filed a defective charge sheet. The Superintendent of Police directed further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., leading to the rejection of the request for trial splitting in 2019. However, the High Court later granted the split, considering the prolonged pendency and non-service of summons.
In response to the High Court’s decision, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court. Advocate A. Velan argued that the High Court’s order overlooked the prior order for further investigation and relied on legal precedent to assert that an order obtained by fraud is null and void.
The Supreme Court, citing the case of Subramaniam Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra (2004 8 SCC 220), upheld the petitioner’s contentions, deeming the High Court’s judgment as null and void. The court emphasized that no revision lies against an interlocutory order, and a decision under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. qualifies as such. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, reinstating the order of the Judicial Magistrate from 2019.
The case in question is titled S.Mujibar Rahman v State.
