Source – Supreme Court

Why in News?

The bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal explained the scenario under which splitting of trial cannot take place under Section 317 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of S. Mujibar Rahman v. State.

What is the Background of S. Mujibar Rahman v. State Case?

• First Information Report (FIR) was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 212, 120B and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property Damages Act, 1982 against 31 accused.
• Presence of a few accused was not procure before the Magistrate.
• The Telangana High Court orderd the Trial Court to spilt the trial of accused who were present and who were absent under Section 317 (2) of CrPC.
• However, the order of magistrate passed for further investigation of case was still in process, hence the petitioner approached the SC against the order of HC to split the trial.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• The SC observed that “When the HC permitted the splitting of the trial, important aspects were not noted by the HC one of which is that the order of further investigation passed by magistrate on 13^th February 2019”.
  • Therefore, this was not the stage at which the HC could have permitted splitting of the case.

What is Section 317 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

• About:
  • Section 317 (2) gives the court the power to adjourn or split proceedings in a criminal case.
  • This power is exercised when the court is satisfied that the personal attendance of the accused is not necessary for the time being.
• Legal Framework:
  • 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.
• Grounds for Splitting:
  • The court can consider various grounds to decide whether the personal attendance of the accused is necessary.
    • Grounds may include illness of the accused, absence for a legitimate reason, or other circumstances that make the presence of the accused impractical.
• Discretion of the Court:
  • The decision to split proceedings is at the discretion of the court.
  • The court must weigh the circumstances of the case and determine whether it is in the interest of justice to proceed in the absence of the accused.
• Preventing Abuse of Process:
  • The provision helps prevent the abuse of the legal process. It allows the court to manage cases efficiently without compromising the fairness of the trial.