Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition filed by the Chairman of Sanjivani Groups seeking the consolidation of the trials, given the identical nature of the allegations, i.e., cheating and misappropriation of funds, to protect his fundamental right to a speedy and fair trial, single-judge bench of Farjand Ali, J., directed the consolidation of cases based on geography and then transfer them to appropriate judicial forums for efficient and fair trials, thereby ensuring the accused’s rights under the law.
“The right to a free and fair trial of, every accused encompasses within it, the inherent right to be heard without prejudice to ensure that no bias hinders achieving justice.”
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner, chairperson of a multi-level cooperative society — Sanjivani Group, was facing prosecution due to financial mismanagement allegations. The society, registered in 2010, operated across multiple states, including Rajasthan. In 2019, due to a financial downturn, society failed to make payments to its investors, leading to allegations of cheating and misappropriation of funds. After an investigation by the SOG (Special Operation Group), an FIR was lodged on 23-08-2019 in Jaipur. Following this, multiple FIRs, 259 in total, were registered by different investors in 16 districts of Rajasthan, each with the same cause of action. The petitioner preferred the present writ petition seeking consolidation of trials to streamline the judicial process and avoid procedural delays.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner argued that the repetitive nature of the cases has resulted in excessive delays, inability to mount a proper defense, and unnecessary logistical burdens due to constant transit between courts. The petitioner preferred the present writ petition seeking the consolidation of the trials, given the identical nature of the allegations across all cases, to protect his fundamental right to a speedy and fair trial. However, the State though acknowledged the burden of multiple FIRs and the procedural challenges arising from constant transfers but opposed the plea for consolidation and argued that individual FIRs require separate legal consideration.
Law Points
Right to a speedy trial under Article of the .
Section of the allows for the consolidation of up to three offences of the same nature committed within a year.
The Doctrine of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy) is invoked to argue for consolidation of trial, as there is no express provision for clubbing more than three cases but a constitutional right to a fair and timely trial remains.
Court’s Observation
Multiplicity of FIRs & Burden on Judicial Process
The Court acknowledged that the multiplicity of FIRs, despite having the same cause of action, has led to an undue delay in the trial process, making the criminal proceedings against the petitioner highly inefficient. It noted that the judicial burden of handling over 259 cases across 16 districts led to a prolonged and cumbersome trial process. It noted that the constant transit of the accused between courts hampers not only petitioner’s defence but also places an unnecessary burden on the State’s judicial and law enforcement resources.
Right to Speedy Trial — Article 21
The Court referred to A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Naik, and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, and underscored on the constitutional mandate of right to a speedy trial as a part of the fundamental rights under Article 21. The Court held that administrative inefficiency or the burden of multiple cases should not infringe on this right.
“The right to speedy trial flowing from Article of the encompasses all the stages such as investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, and re-trial.”
The Court noted that repeated FIRs for the same substance of accusation resulted in unnecessary delays, effectively turning the process of prosecution into a form of persecution. The Court expressed concerns that the current judicial proceedings have turned into persecution rather than prosecution. The Court asserted that the process has itself became a punishment, thereby violating the petitioner’s right to a fair and speedy trial.
“…filing of numerous cases has subjected the petitioner to multiple investigations across the country stemmed from the same set of charge and as such the machinery of the criminal justice has been relentlessly employed against the petitioner as a consequence of which he has been trapped in a vicious cycle of the criminal process where in fact the process has itself became the punishment.”
The Court suggested that consolidating cases arising from the same cause of action is necessary to avoid judicial delays and to uphold the constitutional rights of the petitioner. The Court emphasized that prosecution should be aimed at justice, not at harassing the accused.
The Court also discussed Section of the , which allows for the consolidation of similar offenses within a year but noted that there was no express provision addressing situations involving over 250 cases. The Court stated that “when there is no remedy under any statutory provision, then the Doctrine of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium, comes into play.” The Court stated that the Doctrine of “Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium” means where there is a right, there is a remedy, i.e., if there is any violation of the legal right, then the law provides a remedy to the affected person.
“Everyone including the accused has a right to have a good legal remedy by the competent Court for the acts which violate his fundamental rights and human rights which are guaranteed to every citizen by the Constitution of India.”
Fair Trial and Representation – Section
The Court noted that the accused’s right to be present at trial proceedings, to engage effectively with counsel, and to witness the production of evidence is being hindered by the large number of ongoing cases across various jurisdictions. The Court stated that traveling between courts across the State undermines the petitioner’s ability to defend himself.
“If the petitioner moves from one court to another for marking his presence in the stages of the trial/judicial proceeding then the accused would have to remain traveling every day from district to district and jail to court or court to jail which may leave him in total ruins and doing so would be detrimental to his right to defend properly.”
Prosecution v. Persecution
The Court distinguished between prosecution (a legal process aimed at upholding justice) and persecution (discriminatory or biased actions that amount to harassment). The Court asserted that the accused’s prolonged detention, without any trial initiation, is tantamount to persecution rather than prosecution. The Court held that the multiplicity of FIRs has led to an undue hardship for the accused, violating his fundamental right to fair trial.
Inherent Powers of the High Court
The Court stated that under Section of the , the High Court possesses inherent powers to prevent the abuse of the legal process. The Court recognised its duty to ensure justice by consolidating cases and preventing the accused from being perpetually detained without resolution.
“This Court is supposed to ensure that no party to the lis fails to have a right to a fair trial; a fair trial which would not only mean deciding the case in accordance with the law but also encompasses a fair right to defend the case within a reasonable period.”
Transfer and Consolidation of Cases — Section
The Court explored whether it had the power to transfer cases to other courts that did not possess territorial jurisdiction under Section of the . The Court opined that the consolidation of cases can be done based on geographical proximity. The Court held that cases pending in nearby districts should be grouped and transferred to a larger, more suitable judicial forum for collective trial proceedings. The Court opined that this would alleviate the burden on the judicial system, reduce logistical issues, and ensure that the accused receives a fair trial.
Court’s Direction
The Court directed that all the cases pending in various districts be consolidated into specific sessions and magistrate courts for streamlined proceedings. The Court issued detailed instructions to 16 districts, including Jaipur, Jodhpur, Barmer, Nagaur, Udaipur, and others, to transfer all relevant case records and materials to the specified courts, enabling further trial proceedings. Each district’s judicial authorities were directed to make immediate arrangements for sending the files. The Court —
Directed that the cases under the BUDS Act, along with other related charges against the accused, were to be forwarded to the District and Sessions Court, Jodhpur for consolidated trial.
Directed that the cases triable by Magistrates to be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in the respective district where the cases had been consolidated.
Emphasised on the need for expeditious handling of case transfers and trial proceedings.
Instructed the police/investigating agency/jail authorities to ensure that the accused, Vikram Singh, was produced for trial in the respective courts as specified.
Ordered the Director General of Police, Rajasthan to ensure compliance by issuing necessary directives to the concerned officers.
During the transfer and ongoing trial, the court allowed for remand arrangements by the concerned courts as necessary.
Court’s Decision
The Court directed the consolidation of all related cases and ensuring speedy judicial proceedings and disposed of the writ petition and all the pending applications. The Court clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the allegations contained in the FIRs and only focused on procedural efficiency.
[Vikram Singh v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1479/2023, Decided on 23-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Anil Joshi, AAG with Mr. Pallav Sharma, Counsel for the Respondents
Mr. Chiranji Lal Meena, A.S.P., S.O.G., Jaipur, Present in person
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .