M.N.Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 18.09.2014 passed on application under Sections 219, 220 & 223 Cr.P.C.
(2.) LEARNED counsel submits that application was filed for consolidation of 8 cases for its trial. It is looking to the nature of allegation. In absence of consolidation of the cases, delay would be caused in the trial. It is urged that out of 8 cases, no progress has been made in 7 cases. To avoid delay, even the learned Public Prosecutor had agreed for consolidation of the cases for its trial. The trial court however dismissed the application in ignorance of the aforesaid. If cases are not consolidated, the trial would take 25 to 30 years. In view of above, impugned order may be quashed with the acceptance of the application for consolidation of the cases for its trial. Learned counsel has given reference of Apex Court in the case of Kadiri Kunhahammad Vs. The State of Madras, reported in : AIR 1960 SC 661 where consolidation of the cases was allowed.
(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor with the assistance of the OIC submitted that earlier similar application was dismissed by the court below vide order dated 24.05.2011. The criminal misc. petition bearing No. 1429/2011 was filed to challenge the said order. It was dismissed by this court vide order dated 05.07.2011. It was not open for review in view of provisions of 362 Cr.P.C. The petitioners yet submitted application for consolidation of the cases. It was again dismissed by the court followed by a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was disposed of vide order dated 12.05.2014 as learned counsel for petitioners prayed for liberty to move fresh application in the change circumstances. The petitioners submitted application for consolidation of the cases on third occasion. It has been dismissed vide the impugned order finding that not only 8 incidences are of different places but the injured and majority of the witnesses are also different, thus question of consolidation of cases is not made out. It is apart from the fact that in one case, trial has already advanced as out of 108 witnesses, 82 have already been examined and in other case also, statements of 70 witnesses have been recorded. The consolidation of the cases at this stage would result in fresh trial even in those cases. In view of aforesaid, prayer made by the petitioners was rightly declined.;