ORDER
B.K. Rathi, J.
1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 21-8-1999 passed by IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 536 of 1993.
2. The following facts are admitted. An F.I.R. was lodged nominating the opposite party No. 2,Shail Kumari and certain other persons. The other accused of the case except Shall Kumari, opposite party No. 2 were committed to the Court of Session and therefore, the case was registered as S.T. No. 795 of 1992. The charges were framed in the same. In the meantime Shall Kumari, opposite party No. 2 was also committed to the Court of Session and her sessions trial was registered at S.T. No. 536 of 1993 and it was sent for trial to the same Court where S.T. No. 795 of 1992 was pending. The charge was framed against Shail Kumari, opposite party No. 2 as well and evidence of several witnesses was recorded. Thereafter, an application was moved by Shail Kumari, opposite party No. 2 to recall the witnesses on the ground that no evidence has been recorded in S.T. No. 536 of 1993 and therefore, the witnesses should be recalled for further cross-examination by her. The trial Court considered the question in detail and ordered that both the sessions trials are consolidated and the evidence recorded in one sessions trial shall also be read in another and S.T. No. 795 of 1995 shall be the leading case. He further ordered that all the witnesses be recalled for further cross examination by opposite party No. 2. Aggrieved by that order, the applicant, who is the complainant in the case, preferred the present petition.
3. I have heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kr. R.C. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A.
4. In my opinion, passing the order for recalling the witnesses for further cross-examination by opposite party No. 2 and consolidating the cases the trial Court has committed a gross error of law. There is no provision for consolidation of the cases in Cr.P.C. nor any case can be made a leading case. The evidence recorded in one case can not be read under any provisions of law in another case. The trial Court has totally ignored the provisions of Section 223, Cr.P.C. which provides that the accused persons of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction can be charged and tried together. Therefore, any number of accused, who are alleged to have committed offence in the same transaction can be charged and tried together. The opposite party No. 2 is alleged to have committed the offence with other accused of S.T. No. 795 of 1992. Therefore, she can be jointly tried with other accused under the provisions of Section 223, Cr.P.C. She was separately committed and therefore the registration of a different sessions trial is only for statistical purposes to keep the records properly. The accused of one case, who are committed to the Court of Session by different order, can be tried together and, in fact their cases stand amalgamated. There is no question of consolidating the cases and making any case a leading case and ordering that the evidence in one case shall be read in another case or for pronouncing the separate judgments in all those cases or putting the copy of the judgment on the record of other sessions trial. Since Shall ,Kumari was committed to the Court of Session, notwithstanding that a separate sessions trial number was allotted to her case, she will be tried with other accused in the original S.T. No. 795 of 1992 as the offences are alleged to be same committed in the same course of transaction. There is no requirement of her trial in S.T. No. 536 of 1993 in which she was committed nor maintaining any separate record S.T. No. 536 of 1993. In fact, after the charges were framed against Shail Kumari, her case stood amalgamated with other accused of the same crime. A separate record regarding the evidence against Shail Kumari and a separate judgment in S.T. No 536 of 1993 is not required under law.
5. In the circumstances the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a gross error of law by directing for consolidating the cases and ordering that both the cases are consolidated. He committed a gross error of law in making one case as a leading case and ordering that the evidence recorded in one case shall also be read in another case. In fact all the accused are to be tried together notwithstanding the different committal orders on the basis of which different sessions trials have been allotted and for all purposes they shall be tried together and the separate sessions trial is only for the purpose of convenience.
6. The applicant has filed the photocopies of the entire statements of the witnesses. The perusal of the copies shows that the opposite party No. 2 engaged Sri K.P. Singh as her counsel, who also cross examined the witnesses on her behalf. The statements of witnesses show that adequate cross examination has been done on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.
7. In the circumstances, the order of the trial Court for recalling the witnesses for further cross examination by the opposite party No. 2 and for consolidating of the cases is liable to be quashed. The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21-8-1999 passed by IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No. 536 of 1993 is quashed. Learned Additional Sessions Judge will proceed with the case and disposed of the sessions trial expeditiously in the light of the observations made above.