The Rajasthan High Court recently directed consolidation of trial in over 130 FIRs lodged against Girdhar Singh Sodha, former Chairperson of Navjeevan Credit Cooperative Society [Girdhar Singh Sodha v State of Rajasthan]. .Sodha is an accused in multiple cases of cheating, criminal breach of trust, cheating and misappropriation of funds of investors. The cases were registered in Rajasthan and other States under various provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act. He approached the Court for consolidation of the trial..Allowing the plea, Justice Farjand Ali said that holding judicial proceedings in various districts would be cumbersome and perhaps may end with the life of the accused.“Multiple FIR shall be subject to investigation followed by a trial in every case in the Courts of Judicial Magistrate at the district block level as well as in Sessions divisions arising out of the same cause of action shall not solve the purpose of criminal prosecution and this trial shall be prolonged which is against the spirit of law causing injustice to the parties,” the Court said.It added that the same would be violative of fundamental rights of both parties – accused and prosecution, especially when the substance of accusation, the accused and the nature of evidence are the same.“A single transactional activity by the accused by forming a Society and luring the public to invest their money in it and thereby allegedly duping/ cheating/ defrauding/ swindling several person is the crux, essence, and basic substance of each of the cases lodged at the hands of different people at different areas of the State of Rajasthan,” the Court noted..Further, the Court found that Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) permits clubbing of only three similar criminal cases if committed within a year. It thus asked,“What to do if the nature of the charge is the same, the accused is the same, the primary cause of action is the same, the nature of accusation in all cases is the same and they are committed within one year but the cases are more than three; there is no express provision in this regard but there is a mechanism or permissibility of clubbing/joining the different cases. This means the law recognizes clubbing or consolidation of a particular number of cases against the accused where the nature of the crime is the same, however, it limits and restricts its ambit only upto three cases if committed within one year.”.The Court added that the law is silent on how to deal with the matter where more than 250 cases in 16 different districts are registered. Answering the conundrum, the Court said the doctrine of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium – ‘wherever there is right, there is remedy’ - will apply.Being a Constitutional Court and custodian of the law, this Court is duty-bound and rather expected to see that the accused may be prosecuted and not be persecuted without a finding of guilt, the single-judge said.“Due to the lodging of umpteen number of cases by the state machinery, the accused has been trapped in a vicious cycle of the process of Criminal justice and without fruitful progress in any of the cases, in fact, the process has become a punishment for the accused,” the Court stated..Taking note of the fact that there are 133 cases against the accused, who is 47 years old, and that the trial in these cases would take decades, the Court ordered consolidation of the trial in criminal cases pending against him in nearby districts.“A bunch/group of cases of nearby district/town/city should be prepared and trial/inquiry of that group can be directed to be done at a bigger and more convenient place for all the stakeholders,” it said, while passing directions to club/consolidate the 133 cases on the basis of their nature and geography. The Court issued directions to various District and Sessions Judges to transfer the cases triable by magistrate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate within their jurisdiction. Further, the Court directed that the cases registered under the BUDS Act, with other offences, shall be forwarded to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge of Jodhpur district, which shall try the cases in a consolidated manner. Advocate Priyanka Borana represented the petitioner. .[Read Judgment]
The Rajasthan High Court recently directed consolidation of trial in over 130 FIRs lodged against Girdhar Singh Sodha, former Chairperson of Navjeevan Credit Cooperative Society [Girdhar Singh Sodha v State of Rajasthan]. .Sodha is an accused in multiple cases of cheating, criminal breach of trust, cheating and misappropriation of funds of investors. The cases were registered in Rajasthan and other States under various provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act. He approached the Court for consolidation of the trial..Allowing the plea, Justice Farjand Ali said that holding judicial proceedings in various districts would be cumbersome and perhaps may end with the life of the accused.“Multiple FIR shall be subject to investigation followed by a trial in every case in the Courts of Judicial Magistrate at the district block level as well as in Sessions divisions arising out of the same cause of action shall not solve the purpose of criminal prosecution and this trial shall be prolonged which is against the spirit of law causing injustice to the parties,” the Court said.It added that the same would be violative of fundamental rights of both parties – accused and prosecution, especially when the substance of accusation, the accused and the nature of evidence are the same.“A single transactional activity by the accused by forming a Society and luring the public to invest their money in it and thereby allegedly duping/ cheating/ defrauding/ swindling several person is the crux, essence, and basic substance of each of the cases lodged at the hands of different people at different areas of the State of Rajasthan,” the Court noted..Further, the Court found that Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) permits clubbing of only three similar criminal cases if committed within a year. It thus asked,“What to do if the nature of the charge is the same, the accused is the same, the primary cause of action is the same, the nature of accusation in all cases is the same and they are committed within one year but the cases are more than three; there is no express provision in this regard but there is a mechanism or permissibility of clubbing/joining the different cases. This means the law recognizes clubbing or consolidation of a particular number of cases against the accused where the nature of the crime is the same, however, it limits and restricts its ambit only upto three cases if committed within one year.”.The Court added that the law is silent on how to deal with the matter where more than 250 cases in 16 different districts are registered. Answering the conundrum, the Court said the doctrine of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium – ‘wherever there is right, there is remedy’ - will apply.Being a Constitutional Court and custodian of the law, this Court is duty-bound and rather expected to see that the accused may be prosecuted and not be persecuted without a finding of guilt, the single-judge said.“Due to the lodging of umpteen number of cases by the state machinery, the accused has been trapped in a vicious cycle of the process of Criminal justice and without fruitful progress in any of the cases, in fact, the process has become a punishment for the accused,” the Court stated..Taking note of the fact that there are 133 cases against the accused, who is 47 years old, and that the trial in these cases would take decades, the Court ordered consolidation of the trial in criminal cases pending against him in nearby districts.“A bunch/group of cases of nearby district/town/city should be prepared and trial/inquiry of that group can be directed to be done at a bigger and more convenient place for all the stakeholders,” it said, while passing directions to club/consolidate the 133 cases on the basis of their nature and geography. The Court issued directions to various District and Sessions Judges to transfer the cases triable by magistrate to the Chief Judicial Magistrate within their jurisdiction. Further, the Court directed that the cases registered under the BUDS Act, with other offences, shall be forwarded to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge of Jodhpur district, which shall try the cases in a consolidated manner. Advocate Priyanka Borana represented the petitioner. .[Read Judgment]
