Legal Provisions of Section 223 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
What persons may be charged jointly?
The section provides for joint trial of several persons in certain specified cases because of some basic connection between the various offences committed by them. The joint trial of several persons partly by applying one clause and partly by applying-another clause of this section is permissible.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalpati Goneswara Rao, has observed that “it is clear that the sections preceding Section 223 have no overriding effect on that section, the Courts are not to ignore them but apply such of them as can be applied without deviating from the provisions of Section 223.”
The Apex Court in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab, has clarified that it is not possible for the Court under Section 223 of the Code to club and consolidate the case on a complaint where the prosecution versions in the police challan case and the complaint case are materially different, contradictory and mutually exclusive.
Image Source : luna.edu
The essential elements in determining whether certain events form the same transaction, within the meaning of Section 223 are the continuity of action and the sameness of purpose. Thus the Supreme Court in Purushottam Dalmia v. State of West Bengal, held that the Court having local jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy can also try all offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy even if those offences are committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of that Court.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It may be reiterated that the exceptions contained in Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 to the basic rule regarding charge that for every distinct offence there shall be a separate charge and for every such charge there shall be a separate trial (Section 218) are only enabling provisions. Therefore, a Court has the discretion to order a separate trial even though the case is covered by one of the exceptions enabling a joint trial.
However, where there is risk of prejudice being caused to the accused person in a joint trial, it is always desirable to arrange a separate trial. Commenting on this point, the Supreme Court in Ranchod Lai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, has observed that it is the option of the Court whether to resort to Sections 219, 220, and 223 of the Code or to act as laid down in Section 218 and the accused has no right to claim joinder of charges or joinder of offenders.