Article 142 and joint-trial procedure used to restore a fractured prosecution and continue trial without starting afresh.

Article discusses consolidation of a fractured criminal prosecution through transfer of pending proceedings to Lucknow for a joint trial based on a common charge-sheet. It explains that the trial could continue from the stage already reached, with additional charges framed on the existing record, and that witnesses already examined could be recalled for further cross-examination to avoid prejudice. It also notes that Article 142 was treated as a power to do complete justice and to mould procedural relief where the split prosecution had created a practical breakdown, provided no mandatory substantive bar was breached. The result was continuation of the criminal case as a unified trial without restarting it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the proceedings pending at Rae Bareilly could be transferred to Lucknow to secure a joint trial on the basis of the joint charge-sheet; (ii) Whether additional charges could be framed in the transferred proceedings without commencing a de novo trial; (iii) Whether Article 142 of the Constitution of India could be invoked to remedy the fractured prosecution and override the objection based on transfer procedure and appeal rights.

Issue (i): Whether the proceedings pending at Rae Bareilly could be transferred to Lucknow to secure a joint trial on the basis of the joint charge-sheet.

Analysis: The judgment dated 12 February 2001 had already proceeded on the footing that the CBI had filed a joint charge-sheet on the basis that all offences formed part of the same transaction and were intertwined with the alleged conspiracy. The later split prosecution and discharge of some accused had fractured what was meant to be a consolidated trial. To restore the prosecution to its original, unified footing, the pending proceedings at Rae Bareilly were required to be brought to Lucknow.

Conclusion: The proceedings were directed to be transferred to Lucknow for a joint trial.

Issue (ii): Whether additional charges could be framed in the transferred proceedings without commencing a de novo trial.

Analysis: The charges already emerged from the same joint charge-sheet and the trial had progressed in both places. The Court held that the existing proceedings could continue from the stage reached, with additional charges being added in accordance with the existing record. The accused were not to be prejudiced because they could recall witnesses already examined for further cross-examination, and the trial court was to regulate such recall so that the matter was not unduly prolonged.

Conclusion: Additional charges were permitted and no de novo trial was ordered.

Issue (iii): Whether Article 142 of the Constitution of India could be invoked to remedy the fractured prosecution and override the objection based on transfer procedure and appeal rights.

Analysis: Article 142 was treated as a power to do complete justice and to mould relief in aid of the adjudicatory process. The Court distinguished the objection based on transfer provisions and held that the present direction did not violate any mandatory substantive bar. The transfer was justified to cure the practical breakdown caused by the earlier technical defect and the resulting split prosecution.

Conclusion: Article 142 was held available to direct the transfer and to ensure completion of the trial in a consolidated manner.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the criminal proceedings were ordered to continue at Lucknow as a unified trial with additional charges added and without starting afresh.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court may invoke Article 142 to transfer proceedings and mould procedural relief to secure complete justice, including restoration of a fractured prosecution to a consolidated trial, so long as it does not transgress a mandatory substantive prohibition.

---