JUDGMENT
Guman Mal Lodha, J.
1. These three Criminal Misc. petitions Nos. 276/86, 236/86 and 337/86 are being decided by one common judgment, as prayed by the learned Counsel, because they are directed against one judgment.
2. Learned Counsel Mr. Khandelwal and Mr. Surana submit that all the cases can be categorised in three categories requiring three joint trials; (i) flood cases 10,11 & 12 of 1981 in which Purshottam Tripathi is the accaused; (2) case Nos. 8, and 9 of 1981 in which Purshottam Tripathi is a witness. The third category is for special repairs in which Purshottam Tripathi.is a witness and they are 33 to 45 of 1979 and 7 to 10 of 1980.
3. Mr. Purohit, learned P.P. has opposed this prayer. According to him, the sets of accused are different and the charges are also different, as in each case the conspirators are different, though Assistant Engineer maybe Engineer may be common.
4. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and I am of the view that the scope of Section 482, Gr. PC is very limited. Section 482. Cr. PC reads as under:
Section482~Saving of inherent power of High Court.-Nothing in this code shall be deemed to limit or effect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
5. In the application which was filed before the lower court, there was no express mention that the joint trial, as suggested before this court, would not prejudice the case of the accused, although generally in has been mentioned that it would be in the interest of justice and the accused.
6. On a careful study of Section 223, Cr. P.C. I am unable to hold that the joint trial, as suggested above, would not be prejudicial. When the sets of accused are different and the conspiracy is also different with different persons, though all of them may be common, in my opinion the best course to do justice and to avoid prejudice is the one which has been adopted by the trial court in this case where in joint trial has been ordered where the sets of accused are the same. The trial court has directed that there would be joint trial so far as the cases Nos, 34 and 37 of 79 with case No. 10/80 are concerned. Similarly, joint trial has been ordered in cases Nos. 33, 37 and 38 of 1979. Again, joint trial has been ordered in cases Nos. 40 and 42 of 1979. Similarly, joint trial has been ordered in cases Nos. 7 and 9 of 1980 along with case No. 39 of 1979. The reason given by the trial court is that there are different cooperative societies having different office bearers, who have been parties to the conspiracies. Other reasons have been given regarding different work-charged measurements, witnesses., place of work, agreement, orders, supply of different material in different areas of the Assistant Engineers, measure book entries, periods and dates of agreements etc., and I am of the opinion that it cannot be said that this direction of the trial court would result in any abuse of the process of the court. None of the requirements of Section 482, Cr. PC are fulfilled for ordering fresh joint trials in three categories, as suggested by Mr. Khandelwal and Mr. Surana, and quashing the order of the trial court.
7. It is unfortunate that the cases of 1979 and 1980 relating to offences of the FIR of 1975 and even 1971 and 1973 have not been proceeded in any manner what so ever.
9. The trial court should realise that the offence committed in 1971 for which challans nave been filed in 1979 and 1980 are yet non-starters so far as trials are concerned and the trials have been forestalled for one reason or the other upto 1987. Thus, a period of almost 16 years from the date of occurrence has been taken either on account of delay in investigation or trial by the court, or on account of various objections which have been taken by the accused from time to time.
9. Mr. Khandelwal submitted that according to the decision in , joint trials are permissible even in such cases. Mr. Surana has referred to the judgment of this court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 95/86 Harswaroop v. The State.
10. Mr. Purobit pointed out that the principles of law are well known, but the application depends upon the facts of each case, and therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present cases, when the matter is examined, the procedure adopted by the trial court alone would be in consonance with justice and would not be prejudicial to either party. I am of the view that looking to the nature of the cases, which are to be tried, and the various facts pointed out by the trial court would, the impugned order, not result in abuse of process of the court or in any manner do injustice to either of the parties.
11. The net result is that even after 16 years the trials are yet to be commenced. This is a serious matter which should attract the attention of the trial court as with the passage of such a long time the availability of the evidence and the witnesses would also gradually diminish. It is expected that the trial court would now take steps to expedite the trial.
12. All the three applications are dismissed.