Judgment Of Acquittal Of Co-Accused In Criminal Trial Isn't Admissible U/S 40-43 Evidence Act To Bar Subsequent Trial Of Absconding Accused: Allahabad HC
|The Allahabad High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Rafique Ansari in 1995 case.
The Court said that the judgment of acquittal of co-accused in a criminal trial is not admissible to bar the subsequent trial of the absconding co-accused.
Ansari had filed an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) with a prayer to quash the proceeding of a criminal case under Sections 147, 436, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh remarked, “In view of above discussion, it is clear that the judgment of acquittal of co-accused in a criminal trial is not admissible under sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act to bar the subsequent trial of the absconding co-accused and cannot hence be deduced as a relevant document while considering the prayer to quash the proceedings against remaining co-accused under section 482 Cr.P.C. The judgment of acquittal will be admissible only to show as to who were the parties in the proceedings or factum of acquittal. As such securing of acquittal by co-accused cannot be considered as relevant circumstances and ground for exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings as against those accused who has not faced the trial. The judgment not inter parties cannot justify the invocation of the doctrine of issue stopple under the Law."
The Court observed that by allowing individuals facing serious criminal charges to evade legal accountability, we risk perpetuating a culture of impunity and disrespect for rule of law.
"The case underscores the urgent need for reforms to ensure swift and impartial justice, regardless of one’s political status. Failure to address such issue not only compromises the principles of democracy but also jeopardizes the fabric of the society, perpetuating a cycle of corruption and lawlessness. It is imperative that elected officials uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct and accountability, lest they betray the very essence of their mandate to serve the public good”, it added.
Advocate Nitin Sharma represented the applicant while Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Deepak Mishra represented the opposite parties.
In this case, an FIR was lodged in 1995 against 35-40 unknown persons for the offence under Sections 147, 436, and 427 of the IPC and was registered at Police Station in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against 22 accused persons and thereafter another supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant- Rafique Ansari on which the concerned court below took cognizance in 1997, but on non-appearance of the applicant, non-bailable warrant was issued and thereafter despite repeated non-bailable warrant and process under Section 82 of CrPC, the applicant did not appear before the trial court.
Main substratum of argument of the counsel for the applicant was that 22 accused persons who were made accused in the charge-sheet were acquitted after facing trial, and therefore, the entire proceeding of the Criminal Case against the applicant, who was Member of Legislative Assembly, was also liable to be quashed. On the other hand, the AGA for the State opposed the prayer of the applicant by contending that the relief as sought for by the applicant by means of the application was liable to be rejected.
The High Court after hearing the arguments of the counsel observed, “I also find that that co-accused had been acquitted on 15.5.1997, but thereafter also the applicant did not seek any legal remedy and the instant application has been preferred by him after about 26 years, 2 months and 23 days on 10.3.2024. The issue involved in the matter has already been settled by this Court in the cases referred to above.”
The Court said that it cannot shut its eyes and become as silent spectator and for the enforcement of law, there should not be selective treatment among the public.
“The non execution of non-bailable warrant against the sitting MLA and allowing him to participate in assembly session sets a perilous and egregious precedent, that undermines the integrity of the State machinery and judicial system while eroding public trust in elected representatives”, it noted.
The Court held that even on the acquittal of co-accused, the charge sheet and criminal proceeding pursuant thereto against the remaining co-accused cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application.
Cause Title- Rafique Ansari v. State of U.P. and Another (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:75413)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocate Nitin Sharma
Opposite Parties: AGA Deepak Mishra and Advocate Priyanka Singh.