SECTION 223 CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure - 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 offence 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 number 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.
Comments
(i) Where there is a communality of purpose or design when there is continuity of action then all those persons involved can be accused of the same or different offences committed in course of same transaction If such two diametrically opposite versions are put to joint trial the confusion which can cause in the trial could be incalcullable Permission to joint trial illegal; Balbir v State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 11: 2000 Cr LJ 169 (SC)
(ii) The two trials were separately conducted one after the other by the same Court before the same judge and judgment in both cases were separately pronounced on the same day No doubt the session judge should take care of that he would confine his judgment in one case only to the evidence adduced in the case The public prosecutor who prosecuted one case should avoid prosecution in other case Permission for joint trial not legal; Balbir v State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 11: 2000 Cr LJ 169 (SC)
View Previous | View Next
