Patna High Court
Amrendra Kumar Yadav vs Central Bureau Of Investigation (New … on 23 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.416 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2017 Thana- C.B.I CASE District- Patna
======================================================
1. Amrendra Kumar Yadav, Son of Ayodhya Gope Resident of Mishra Tola
Bari Khanjarpur, P.S. - Barari, District - Bhagalpur
2. Rakesh Kumar, Son of Jagannath Prasad Singh Resident Of Professor
Colony, Ward No.25, Forbes Ganj, P.S. - Forbes Ganj, District - Araria
3. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Son of Sri Rameshwar Pandey Resident Of Mohalla -
Masakchak, Sarat Chand Path, P.S. - Adampur, District - Bhagalpur.
Permanent Resident Of Village - Meharpur, P.O. - Mathurapur, P.S. -
Pirpainti, District - Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation (New Delhi) New Delhi
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prasoon Shekhar, Advocate
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shwentank Singh, Advocate
Mr. Uday Pratap Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Krishna Nandan Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 23-07-2025
1. The instant revision is directed against the
order, dated 1st of April, 2024, passed by the learned
Special Judge, CBI-II, Patna in Special Case No. 3 of
2018, arising out of Kotwali (Tilkamanjhi) P. S. Case No.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
2/16
494 of 2017, R. C. Case No. 11/A/2017, whereby and
whereunder, the Trial Court rejected the application, dated
7th of December, 2023, filed by the petitioners under
Section 223 of the Cr.P.C. for joint trial of Special Case
Nos. 6 of 2017, 3 of 2018 and 5 of 2020 at the stage of
examination of the accused persons under Section 313 of
the Cr.P.C. on the ground that all three cases arose from
Kotwali (Tilkamanjhi) P.S. Case No. 494 f 2017.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners
that the above-mentioned three special cases originated
from the same F.I.R. and factual transactions rest on the
same documentary evidence and statement of witnesses.
Therefore, separate trial of the above-mentioned cases
would lead to multiplicity, prejudice and miscarriage of
justice. It may also result contradictory judgments on the
same alleged incident and therefore, the accused persons /
petitioners in three cases ought to be charged jointly.
3. In order to appreciate the case of the
petitioners, it is necessary to state the prosecution case in
a nutshell.
4. The petitioner no. 1, Amrendra Kumar
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
3/16
Yadav, submitted an enquiry report to the Officer
Incharge, Tilkamanjhi Police Station on the basis of a
three-man enquiry committee, consisting of the informant
himself and two others under the direction of the District
Collector, Bhagalpur, alleging, inter alia, that forgery,
financial embezzlement of government money and illegal
withdrawal of public money took place in respect of
Account No. 6268727981, standing in Indian Bank, Patal
Babu Road, Bhagalpur in the name of the District
Nazarath Shakha, Bhagalpur, in respect of Chief Minister
Urban Development Schemes. It is stated in the enquiry
report that the District Development Branch, Bhagalpur
had issued a cheque, bearing No. 929602, dated 27 th of
September, 2014 from Account No. 12622151002877 of
Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tilkamanjhi, Bhagalpur in
favour of Manager, Indian Bank, Bhagalpur, amounting to
Rs. 12,20,15,075/-, which was to be deposited in the
Account No. 6268727981, maintained by the Indian Bank
under the Chief Minister Urban Development Schemes.
However, the said amount was not deposited in the said
account. On the contrary, it was deposited in Account No.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
4/16
82272685, maintained in the name of one Srijan Mahila
Vikash Sahyog Samity Ltd. in connivance with the bank
employees and the above-named NGO. After depositing
the said amount, a sum of Rs. 10,26,58,295/- was
withdrawn from Account No. 82272685.
5. It is also contended that a sum of Rs.
5,50,000,00/- was transferred in the account of Srijan
Mahila Vikash Sahyog Samity Ltd. from Account No.
6268727981 by issuing three cheques bearing nos.
656866, 656865 and 656672 on 1st of September, 2016, 3rd
of June, 2016 and 6th of September, 2016, respectively. It
was revealed that the said cheques were issued, forging
the signature and requisition slip of the Collector. It is also
alleged that the concerned cheque book, having cheque
leaves nos. 656861-656880, was never received by the
Nazarat Branch, Bhagalpur against Account No.
6268727981. It was alleged that the above-named NGO
made the transactions in collusion with bank authorities
and some employees of the Collectorate to misappropriate
huge amount of government money by forging the
signature of the Collector, Bhagalpur in various
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
5/16
documents and cheques and using the said forged
document as genuine.
6. On the basis of the said complaint, CBI
registered RC 11/A/2017, dated 25th of August, 2017,
under Sections 34, 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of
the Indian Penal Code against the Branch Managers of
Indian Bank, Patal Babu Road, Bhagalpur and office
bearers of the Srijan Mahila Vikash Sahyog Samity Ltd.,
Bhagalpur. In course of investigation, it was found by the
CBI that the informant and two other persons, namely,
petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were also involved in criminal
conspiracy, misappropriation of government money,
cheating, forgery etc. and supplementary charge-sheet was
filed against them.
7. It is pertinent to mention here that in all
three cases, charge-sheets were submitted by the CBI. The
first charge-sheet was against the bank Managers and
employees of the concerned Bank; supplementary charge-
sheet against the present petitioners; and third charge-
sheet against 10 other accused persons. The learned
Special Judge took cognizance of offence against the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
6/16
accused persons on the basis of the charge-sheet and the
accused persons duly surrendered before the Trial Court
to face trial. Charges were framed separately in respect of
three charge-sheets, which were registered as three
different cases. Prosecution was called upon to adduce
evidence. The evidence on behalf of the prosecution is
closed and the cases are now fixed for examination of the
accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
8. At this stage, the petitioners came up with an
application, stating, inter alia, that the offences alleged
against the petitioners and other accused persons took
place in course of same transactions and, therefore, the
aforesaid cases may be tried together under Section 223 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused persons
may be examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
jointly.
9. The Trial Judge rejected the said petition
observing as hereunder: –
“Hon’ble Supreme Court
upheld in catena of judgments that while
applying principles initiated in section
218 to 223 of Cr.P.C. as conducting
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
7/16
joint/separate trials, the trial court should
apply two pronged test, namely:
(i) whether conducting a
joint/separate trial will prejudice the
defence of the accused; and
(ii) whether the conducting
joint/separate trial would cause judicial
delay.
The basic rule regarding
charge is that for every distinct offence
there shall be a separate charge and for
every such charge there shall be separate
trial. The only exceptions recognized are
contained the sections 219, 220, 221 and
223 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, separate
trial is the rule and the joint trial
exception. The sections contained the
exceptions are only enabling sections.
Court has got the discretion to order
separate trial even the case is covered by
one of the exception enabling a joint trial
and accused have not vested right to
claim joint trial. Moreover, Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Cr. Misc. No. 5825 of
2021 has directed this court to dispose of
this case (Spl. Case No. 03/2018) within 6
months. So I am of the opinion that
amalgamation of Spl. Case No. 06 of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
8/16
2017 and 05 of 2020 with this Spl. Case
No. 03 of 2018 would cause judicial delay
and violation of the direction of Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed in Cr. Misc. No.
5825 of 2021.”
10. Section 223 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 states as hereunder: –
“223. What persons may be
charged jointly.
The following persons may
be charged and tried together, namely:-
(a) persons accused of the
same offence committed in the course of
the same transaction;
(b) persons accused of an
offence and persons accused of
abetment of, or attempt to commit, such
offence;
(c) persons accused of more
than one offence of the same kind,
within the meaning of section 219
committed by them jointly within the
period of twelve months;
(d) persons accused of
different offences committed in the
course of the same transaction;
(e) persons accused of an
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
9/16offence which includes theft, extortion,
cheating, or criminal misappropriation,
and persons accused of receiving or
retaining, or assisting in the disposal or
concealment of, property possession of
which is alleged to have been
transferred by any such offence
committed by the first-named persons,
or of abetment of or attempting to
commit any such last-named offence;
(f) persons accused of
offences under sections 411 and 414 of
the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or
either of those sections in respect of
stolen property the possession of which
has been transferred by one offence;
(g) persons accused of any
offence under Chapter XII of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860) relating to
counterfeit coin and persons accused of
any other offence under the said
Chapter relating to the same coin, or of
abetment of or attempting to commit
any such offence; and the provisions
contained in the former part of this
Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply
to all such charges:
Provided that where a
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
10/16number of persons are charged with
separate offences and such persons do
not fall within any of the categories
specified in this section, the Magistrate
may, if such persons by an application
in writing, so desire, and if he is
satisfied that such persons would not be
prejudicially affected thereby, and it is
expedient so to do, try all such persons
together.”
11. In Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, reported
in (2022) 2 SCC 89, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
pleased to observe that:
“Section 223 Cr.P.C. begins
with the expression “persons accused”
meaning thereby that Section 223 is
applied when more than one person is
involved in the commission of an offence
or offences. Section 223 stipulates — in
clauses (a) to (g) — situations where
persons may be charged and tried
together. Clause (a) envisages a
situation where persons are accused of
the same offence committed in the course
of the same transaction. Clause (b)
envisages a situation where persons
accused of an offence and persons
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
11/16
accused of abetment or attempt to
commit the offence may be charged and
tried together. Clause (c) applies to a
situation where persons are accused of
more than one offence of the same kind
within the meaning of Section 219
committed by them jointly within twelve
months. Clause (d) envisages that
persons accused of different offences
committed in the course of the same
transaction may be charged and tried
together. Clauses (e), (f) and (g) deal
with specific situations envisaged
therein. The proviso to Section 223
stipulates that where a number of
persons are charged with separate
offences and such persons do not fall
within the ambit of the categories
specified in clauses (a) to (g), the
Magistrate may, if such persons so
desire, in writing, and if he is satisfied
that they would not be prejudicially
affected, and it is expedient to do so, try
all such persons together.”
12. It was, further, held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that:
“(1) Section 218 provides
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
12/16that separate trials shall be conducted
for distinct offences alleged to be
committed by a person. Sections 219-
221 provide exceptions to this general
rule. If a person falls under these
exceptions, then a joint trial for the
offences which a person is charged with
may be conducted. Similarly, under
Section 223, a joint trial may be held for
persons charged with different offences
if any of the clauses in the provision are
separately or on a combination
satisfied.
(2) While applying the
principles enunciated in Sections 218-
223 on conducting joint and separate
trials, the trial court should apply a two-
pronged test, namely,
(i) whether conducting a
joint/separate trial will prejudice the
defence of the accused; and/or
(ii) whether conducting a
joint/separate trial would cause judicial
delay.
(3) The possibility of
conducting a joint trial will have to be
determined at the beginning of the trial
and not after the trial based on the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
13/16
result of the trial. The appellate court
may determine the validity of the
argument that there ought to have been
a separate/joint trial only based on
whether the trial had prejudiced the
right of accused or the prosecutrix.
(4) Since the provisions
which engraft an exception use the
phrase “may” with reference to
conducting a joint trial, a separate trial
is usually not contrary to law even if a
joint trial could be conducted, unless
proven to cause a miscarriage of justice.
(5) A conviction or acquittal
of the accused cannot be set aside on the
mere ground that there was a possibility
of a joint or a separate trial. To set
aside the order of conviction or
acquittal, it must be proved that the
rights of the parties were prejudiced
because of the joint or separate trial, as
the case may be.”
13. Bearing the above principles, laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in mind, this Court is
conscious about its limitations while exercising revisional
jurisdiction. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is not in a
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
14/16
position to consider on examination of record of three
cases instituted by the CBI as to whether separate/joint
trials would not have been caused prejudice to the
accused. However, this Court is inclined to hold that
Section 223 is incorporated in the Code of Criminal
Procedure in Chapter-XVII under the heading “Charge”.
14. It is needless to say that charge is framed
after submission of charge-sheet; supply to the accused
photocopy of police report and other documents under
Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.; supply of copies of statements
and documents to accused in their cases triable by Court
of Sessions and in cases exclusively triable by the Court
of Sessions or by the Special Courts after their
commitment under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C.; opening of
the case for the prosecution by the learned Public
Prosecutor under Section 226 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter
framing of charge under Section 228 of the Cr.P.C., if
after consideration of hearing, under Section 227 of the
Cr.P.C., the judge is of the opinion that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed an offence.
15. It is specifically stated in Nasib Singh
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
15/16
(supra) that the possibility of conducting a joint trial will
have to be determined at the beginning of the trial and not
after the trial based on the result of the trial.
16. Indisputably, the trial of the case are on the
verge of conclusion. The case against the petitioners is
pending for examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
At this stage, the Trial Court has no scope to deal with an
application under Section 223 of the Cr.P.C., because the
application was not filed at the appropriate stage of
framing of charge or before commencement of trial or at
the beginning of the trial. The prayer is made after the
trial is concluded and the accused persons are standing for
their examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
17. Moreover, the Trial Court specifically held
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued a direction to
conclude the trial of R.C. Case No. 11/A/2017 within a
period of six months from the date of order passed on 15th
of September, 2021. Six months have elapsed long ago.
18. Therefore, I do not find any reason of
interference against the impugned order dated 1 st of April,
2024, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI-II, Patna.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.416 of 2024 dt.23-07-2025
16/16
19. The impugned order is affirmed.
20. The revision application is dismissed on
contest.
21. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
skm/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 15.07.2025 Uploading Date 23.07.2025 Transmission Date 23.07.2025
[ad_1]
Source link