Ram Singh Batra vs Cbi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 884 Del

              *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                         Date of Reserve: 24th January, 2011

                                Date of Order: February 14, 2011

                                    + Crl. MC No.196 /2011
%                                                                             14.02.2011
        Ram Singh Batra                                              ...Petitioner

        Versus

        CBI & Ors.                                                   ...Respondents

Counsels:

Mr. R.M. Bagai for petitioner.
Mr. Harish Gulati for CBI/respondent.


        JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?            Yes.

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                           Yes.

3.      Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                                   Yes.


                                           JUDGMENT

1. By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner prayed for

quashing of order dated 20th August, 2010 passed by learned MM whereby he directed

that the trial against accused Baljit Singh shall be segregated from the trial of remaining

accused persons and the trial shall proceed further against other accused persons since

Baljit Singh was not traceable.

2. A Crl.MC No.1670 of 2010 was filed before this Court by one of the accused

persons alleging that the trial court should be given directions to dispose of the criminal

complaint No.4(S) 2004-SCB-II/CBI/DLI, Fir No.107 of 2001 expeditiously and time be

fixed for completion of trial. While disposing of this Crl. MC No.1670 of 2010 on 17th May,

2010, this Court observed that charge-sheet in this case was filed by CBI on 18th April,

Crl.MC 196/2011 Page 1 Of 3 2007 and thereafter the case had not been proceeded further because one of the

accused Baljit Singh was not traceable and had not appeared before the trial court

despite all efforts. This Court gave directions that since Baljit Singh was not appearing

before the trial court, the trial court may consider segregation of the trial and proceed

against the remaining accused persons and this Court also gave direction that

endeavour should be made to dispose of the case within one year.

3. In pursuance of this order, the learned MM passed order dated 20th August, 2010

segregating the trial against Baljit Singh from the trial of rest of the accused persons who

were appearing before the trial court and proceeded further with the trial. The present

petition has been filed after a gap of one a half year of the order questioning the

segregation of trial.

4. Apparently the accused persons seem to be on a collision course. While one

accused person wanted earlier trial, the other wants trial not to take place and is happy

with the adjournments and hanging of the trial. However, these accused persons are

related to each other and there seems to be a concerted effort with a motive of dragging

the trial and simultaneously showing that they were not responsible for dragging the trial.

5. There is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code prohibiting segregation of trial

of that accused who is not appearing in the court and is not traceable, from the accused

persons who are appearing in the court and facing trial. Rather the Code enjoins a duty

on the Magistrate to conclude the trial expeditiously. Under these circumstances, it is

incumbent upon the Magistrates to segregate the trial of that accused who is absconding

and not appearing before the Court from the trial of those accused persons who are

appearing before it. Section 299 of the Code enables the courts to examine witnesses

produced on behalf of the prosecution and record their depositions and such deposition

Crl.MC 196/2011 Page 2 Of 3 may, on the arrest of such person, be given in evidence against him during trial for the

offence with which he is charged, if the deponent is dead or incapable of giving evidence

or cannot be found or his presence cannot be procured without an amount of delay.

6. Thus order dated 20th August, 2010 passed by learned MM is absolutely within

jurisdiction of the trial court and there is no infirmity in the order. The petition has no

force and is a frivolous petition filed deliberately by the petitioner/ accused who intended

to prolong the trial. The petition is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to

Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.

February 14, 2011                                        SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




Crl.MC 196/2011                                                             Page 3 Of 3