TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, under Section 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, a police challan case and a complaint case arising out of the same occurrence but based on materially different, contradictory, and mutually exclusive prosecution versions could be clubbed and consolidated, with evidence recorded in one case treated as evidence in the other.
Analysis: Where two cases arising from the same transaction proceed on fundamentally inconsistent versions, consolidation creates the risk that the evidence in one proceeding will be used to determine the other on a conflicting factual basis. The protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is preserved if the cases are tried together by the same court but the evidence is recorded separately and each case is decided on its own record. The proper course is to avoid consolidation, record the prosecution evidence in each case separately, permit only common witnesses to be examined once with their evidence read in the other case, and then dispose of both matters by separate judgments.
Conclusion: The Court held that the two cases could not be clubbed and consolidated in the face of materially different and mutually exclusive prosecution versions; they had to be tried together but not consolidated, with separate recording of evidence and separate judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: Cases arising from the same transaction but based on materially contradictory and mutually exclusive prosecution versions should be tried together by the same court, not consolidated, so that each is decided on its own evidence and the safeguard against double jeopardy remains intact.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
