LexSTATE (THROUGH) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus SHRI KALYAN SINGH (FORMER CM OF UP) & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 946 A STATE (THROUGH) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. SHRI KALYAN SINGH (FORMER CM OF UP) & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 75 I of 2017) B APRILI9,2017 c [PINAKI CHANDRA GROSE AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 'Bahri Masjid' case - Masjid - Demolition of - 49 FIRs lodged - First FIR lodged against lakhs of kar sewaks for offences ulss.153-A, 295, 297, 332, 337, 338, 395 and 397 r/w 120-B !PC - Second FIR lodged against eight persons (out of whom two are dead) ulss.153-A, 153-B, 505 !PC - Further, 46 F!Rs pertaining to cognizable offences and 1 FIR pertaining to non-cognizable offences were also lodged - Notification issued by the State Government to try all the cases, except second FIR at Lucknow by Special Court - D Special Court committed the cases to a. Court of Sessions - CBI filed a consolidated chargesheet - State Government amended notification and i11serted seco11d FIR, so that all 49 cases could be tried at Lucknow, however, amendment did not comply with proviso to s.11(1) Cr.P.C, thus, it was struck dow11- CBI.filed suppleme11tary E chargesheet against 8 perso11s at Luck11ow - Special Judge, Lucknow held all offe11ces committed i11 course of same transactio11 which warra11ted a joi11t trial - 111 criminal revisio11 petitio11, High · Court upheld frami11g of charges i11 48 cases out of 49 cases, except seco11d FIR a11d, further held that notificatio11 by State government F seeking amendment( of inserting second FIR and trying 49 cases together) of earlier notification was a curable legal infirmity - CBI requested State government to rectify the notification, which was rejected - Then, CBI filed supplementary chargesheet agai11st eight accused perso11s before Judicial Magistrate, Rae Bareilly - Held: The evidences for all.the offences is almost the same and these G offences, therefore, cannot be separated from each other, irrespective of the fact that 49 different F!Rs were lodged - High Court expected rectification of notificatio11 after delivery of its judgment, in which case joint trial would have proceeded, however, i11Stead, supplementary chargesheet was filed by CB/at Rae Bare illy, which completely derailed the joint trial envisaged - Therefore, best H STATE (THROUGH) CBI v. SHRI KALYAN SINGH (FORMER 947 CM OF UP) & ORS. course in present case would be to transfer the proceedings (.'>econd A FIR) going on at Rae Bareilly to the Sessions Court at Lucknow so that joint trial could proceed. Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 3 - 'Bahri Masjid' demolition case - Dropping of proceedings - Special Court dropped proceedings against 21 persons, taking view that there were two sets of accused, one-kar sewaks who demolished the Masjid and others who were instigators and same was upheld by the High Court - Held: The dropping of proceedings against 21 accused was totally erroneous - Said accused could not possibly have been discharged, 8 as they were arrayed as accused insofar charge of criminal conspiracy is concerned in the joint chargesheet filed by the CBI - C Charge of criminal conspiracy being already there in joint chargesheet, this charge could be added to the charges already framed against the survivors of the group of 8 accused - As, against the survivors of the group of 13, Penal Code offences mentioned in the joint chargesheet also need to be added - There is no need for de novo trial inasmuch as the aforesaid charges against all the 21 accused can be added in the ongoing trial. Constitution of India - Arts. 21, 142 - 'Bahri Masjid' demolition case - Transfer of proceedings - Scope of - Respondent Nos. 4, 5 contended that Art.142 cannot be used to transfer proceedings from Rae Bareilly to Lucknow as proceedings at Rae Bareilly was with Judicial Magistrate and 011 going proceedings at Lucknow were with Session Court - It was pleaded that the right to appeal of respondents from court of judicial magistrate to Sessions court would be taken away, infringing Art.21 ~Held: The fact that one Special Judge happens to be Magistrate, whereas the other Special Judge has committed the case to a Court of Sessions would not make any difference as, even a right of appeal from a Magistrate D E F to the Sessions Court and from the Session court to the High Court could be taken away under procedure established by law i.e., by virtue of section 407(1) and (8) - Hence, u/s.407 even if 2 tiers of G appeal are done away with, there is no infr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.