The division of a trial under Section 317(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is impermissible when further investigation has already been ordered : Supreme Court
In the recent case of S. Mujibar Rahman v State, the Supreme Court clarified that the splitting of a trial under section 317(2) of Cr. P.C., 1973 is not permissible when further investigation has been ordered, especially without a non-traceable certificate from the investigating agency. Section 317(2) allows for the separate trial of an accused if not represented by a pleader or if the personal attendance of the accused is deemed necessary.
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a Madras High Court judgment that permitted the splitting of the trial under section 317(2) in a property damage case involving 31 accused persons. The High Court's decision was based on pending summonses and non-bailable warrants against certain accused individuals.
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, found flaws in the High Court's decision. The bench noted that the High Court overlooked the Magistrate's recorded reasons and failed to consider the earlier permission for further investigation granted by the Magistrate. The Court emphasized that the splitting of the trial was inappropriate at that stage, as the Magistrate had not been satisfied with the efforts to procure the presence of all accused and had ordered further investigation.
The case, originating in 2016 during demonetization, involved allegations of inducing the petitioner to exchange old notes for new ones. The petitioner, attacked and robbed, filed a complaint, later alleging collusion between the investigating officer and certain accused individuals. The Superintendent of Police directed further investigation, leading to the application for trial splitting.
The petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court's decision was uninformed about the Magistrate's order for further investigation and invoked the precedent Subramaniam Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, asserting that an order obtained by fraud is null and void. Additionally, the petitioner contended that no revision lies against an interlocutory order, and the order under section 317 CrPC is such.
In light of these arguments, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the Judicial Magistrate's order from 2019.