MAMMAN KHAN v. STATE OF HARYANA

Discusses principles of fair trial, natural justice, equality before law, and interpretation of procedural code provisions.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1113

Court: Supreme Court of India

List of Laws: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India, 1949; General Principles of Law

Legal Discussion:

  1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: The judgment mentions Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, noting its correspondence to Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant's petitions were filed under this section, seeking to quash certain orders.
  2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The judgment extensively discusses provisions related to joinder and separation of charges and trials. Sections 218 to 223 Cr.P.C. are analyzed, with Section 218 establishing the general rule of separate trials for distinct offences. Sections 219 to 223 are identified as exceptions where joint trials are permissible. Section 223(d) is specifically mentioned, stating that persons accused of different offences committed in the same transaction may be tried together. The legislative intent behind these provisions is identified as preventing multiplicity of proceedings, avoiding conflicting judgments, and promoting judicial economy while ensuring fairness. The judgment also notes that Section 223 is couched in discretionary terms. The court ultimately finds that the trial court misapplied Section 223 Cr.P.C.
  3. Indian Penal Code, 1860: The judgment refers to FIR No. 149 registered under sections 148, 149, 153A, 379A, 395, 397, 427, 436, 506, 201, 120B, and 107 IPC. FIR No. 150 was registered under sections 148, 149, 153A, 379A, 395, 427, 436, 506, 201, 120B, 107 and 180 IPC. The judgment also mentions Section 71 IPC in the context of its non-affectation by Section 220(5) CrPC. Section 120B IPC is discussed in relation to conspiracy and whether an alleged conspirator can be tried separately from the principal perpetrators.
  4. Constitution of India, 1949: The judgment discusses Article 20(2) of the Constitution (protection against double jeopardy) and Article 21 (right to a fair trial and speedy trial). It is argued that segregation would expose the appellant to multiple proceedings for the same transaction, violating Article 20(2). The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is discussed, but the court emphasizes that it cannot be secured at the cost of fairness. The judgment also reiterates the foundational constitutional principle enshrined in Article 14, which guarantees that all persons are equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the laws.
  5. General Principles of Law: The judgment discusses the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing. It states that a unilateral order for a separate charge sheet and segregated trial, passed without notice or application, violates the basic principles of procedural fairness. The court emphasizes that mere physical presence of counsel cannot be equated with a meaningful opportunity of hearing and that natural justice requires prior notice and a fair opportunity to present objections. The principle of equality before the law is also discussed, stating that all accused stand equal before the law, and preferential segregation militates against this principle.

Court Judgment

🔒 This content is for members only.
Become a member to read this Judgment.