Surinder Singh, J.
1. Acquittal of the respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code has been challenged by the State in this appeal.
2. Heard and gone through the record.
3. Precisely, facts giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. Respondent is alleged to have got himself nominated to the Engineering College against State Government quota through a fake certificate of bonafide Himachali, in the Engineering College whereas he was not a Himachali but a resident of village Kulwa District Aligarh U.P.
4. Himachali students, who were in the said Engineering College, got suspicious about the antecedents of some of the students who claimed themselves to be the bonafide Himachali as such, a complaint was made to the Chief Minister of the State of H.P. which was marked for inquiry vide letter No. Secy/CM-22/87-C-III (Misc.) F.U dated 25.2.1987. The inquiry was conducted. No such nomination of such student was found to have been made by the State Government to the Engineering College. Thus, an FIR No. 59/87 was registered. During the investigation it came to light that the students, namely, Diwakar Dutt and Surjan Paul managed to get fake certificates through Anil Kumar and in the instant case it was obtained from Surjan Pal J.E in the I and PH Department of UP posted at Aligarh. It was also suspected that a racket was operating for using the fake certificates to get nomination into the various Colleges on the basis of such fake certificates in various professional colleges.
5. Separate challan 115/2 of 1991 was presented against Diwakar Dutt, Anil Kumar and Surjan Paul and also against the respondent whereas another challan No. 2 of 1991 was presented against the respondent. Both these challans were taken up together by the learned trial Court. It appears that the challan against the respondent remained unnoticed. When in Challan No. 115 of 2 of 1991 the evidence was being recorded, it came to the notice of the learned trial Court that a separate challan in criminal case No. 72/2 of 91 was pending against respondent Raj Bahadur. Accordingly respondent was charge sheeted under Sections 468, 471 Indian Penal Code vide order dated 12.10.2001 in this case and learned trial Court adopted the novel method by ordering that the evidence recorded in challan No. 115/2 of 91 State v. Diwakar Dutt and Ors. be also read in this case for which the learned Counsel raised no objection. The order dated 12.10.2001 reads as under:
12.10.2001. Present: Shri Ashwani Dhiwan, Ld. A.P.P for the State
Accused Raj Bahadudr with counsel Sh. S.C. Sharma, Advocate.
This challan be registered separately.
Copy of challan supplied to the accused as per separate statement on file.
Material on record perused. A prima facie case is made out against the accused (Raj Bahadur) for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. Charge accordingly framed. Read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded ot guilty and claimed trial.
As per separate statement of Ld. A.P.P. on file, he has stated that the evidence which has been led by the prosecution in case titled State v. Diwakar Dutt and Ors. NO. 115/2 of 1991 be also read in this case.
Accused as per his separate statement on record has no objection if the evidence recorded in the above said case be also read against him in the present case. He has further stated that he does not want to further cross-examine the witnesses already examined in the said case.
Since the evidence which has come on record in case State v. Diwakar Dutt and Ors. (115/2 of 1991) is to be read in this case, also and the evidence in the above said case (115/2 of 1991) stands already closed, the evidence in the present case stands also closed.
On the basis of evidence, which has come against accused Raj Bahadur in case above said (115/2 of 1991) incriminating circumstances were put him by way his statement recorded by this Court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence is required to be led by the accused in this case. Put up on 23.11.2001.
6. Charge was framed and put to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. [please see at page 136 of the file].
7. Admittedly, no evidence in this case was recorded. In challan No. 115/2 of 1991 vide judgment dated 12.12.2001 respondent was acquitted. The judgment in both the cases is verbatim except the memo of the parties. Para 4 of this judgment makes a reference with respect to the respondent as follows:
Before I proceed further, it is pertinent to point out that accused Diwakar Dutt (Sr. No. 1) and Surjan Paul (Sr. No. 3) were declared as proclaimed offenders and proceeded in absentia. Although a separate challan had been filed against Raj Bahadur, who has been arrayed as accused at Sr. No. 4 but he (Raj Bahadur) was kept on to be tried in the main challan (115/2 of 1991) and was also charged along with accused Anil Kumar in the said challan. Ultimately, on 12.10.2001 when it came to the notice of this Court that a separate challan had been filed against him (Accused Raj Bahadur) and that the same had remained unattended, it was ordered that the said challan be taken up separately and in that challan accused Raj Bahadur be tried as per law. Under these circumstances, accused Raj Bahadur who was being tried in the main challan (115/2 of 91) along with accused Anil Kumar was separated and tried in accordance with law in a separate challan which had been field against him and registered as challan No. 76/2 of 2001.
8. It is established principle of criminal law that the case cannot be clubbed like the civil cases for the purpose of evidence or otherwise and the evidence of one case cannot be read in another case. Part B of Chapter XVII of the Code of Criminal Procedure containing Section 218 to 224 though permits joinder of charges but does not permit consolidation of cases. The learned trial Magistrate has committed a grave error amounting to an illegality in reading the evidence led in case No. 115/2 of 1991 in the present case. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court is wrong and illegal and is accordingly set aside. The case is remanded back to the learned trial Court to record the evidence in this case and dispose of the matter in accordance with law as early as possible keeping in view the date of the offence. Parties are hereby directed to be present in the trial Court on 14.5.2010.