243 of BNSS

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently,  bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan  set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order directing a separate trial of Congress MLA Mamman Khan in the 2023 Nuh violence case. It held that offences arising out of the same transaction must ordinarily be tried jointly under Section 223 CrPC (now Section 243 BNSS), unless distinct and severable acts are involved. The Court ruled that no prejudice to Khan was shown, and a separate trial would lead to duplication of evidence and procedural complications. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana (2025). 

What was the Background of Mamman Khan v. State of Haryana (2025) ? 

• Mamman Khan, a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Ferozepur Jhirka Constituency in Haryana, was implicated as one of the accused in two First Information Reports (FIRs) registered following large-scale communal violence in Nuh District on 31st July 2023. 
• The communal violence resulted in serious law and order disturbances, loss of lives, and extensive damage to both public and private property. Multiple individuals were named as accused in connection with offences including rioting, dacoity, mischief by fire, and criminal intimidation. 
• During the course of investigation, FIR No. 149 involved 43 accused persons while FIR No. 150 involved 28 accused persons. Joint proceedings commenced before the trial court initially for all accused persons together. 
• The prosecution's case was founded on an overarching conspiracy allegedly involving all accused persons. The charge sheet reflected a consolidated investigative approach based on common evidence including call detail records, electronic communications, video footage, witness statements, and forensic reports. The prosecution relied upon largely common witnesses and interlinked evidence against all the accused. 
• However, by orders dated 28th August 2024 and 2nd September 2024, the Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh directed the Station House Officer to file separate charge sheets against Mamman Khan and ordered segregation of his trial from that of the co-accused. The segregation was ordered primarily on the ground that Khan was a sitting MLA and his case needed to be taken up on a day-to-day basis. 
• Pursuant to these directions, separate charge sheets were filed against Khan, charges were framed on 25th November 2024, and prosecution evidence commenced with some witnesses already examined. 
• Khan challenged the segregation orders by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions bearing CRM-M-Nos. 61515 and 61516 of 2024 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking quashing of the trial court's orders. The High Court dismissed both petitions by a common judgment dated 12th December 2024, upholding the segregation. 
• Subsequently, Khan preferred the present appeals before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court reaffirmed that while Section 218 CrPC establishes separate trials as the general rule, Section 223(d) permits joint trials for different offences in the same transaction to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and ensure judicial economy. 
• The trial court's suo motu segregation orders (28.08.2024 & 02.09.2024) based solely on appellant's MLA status, without prosecution application or prior notice, violated Article 21's procedural fairness requirements. 
•  Following Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court found the trial court erred by segregating the regularly appearing appellant instead of absconding co-accused, without recording findings on delay or prejudice, inverting the preference for joint trials in same-transaction cases. 
•  The segregation violated Articles 14 and 21, as all accused are equal before law regardless of political status, and preferential treatment based on MLA position contradicts equality principles while compromising fair trial rights. 
• The trial court improperly directed police to file separate charge sheets, as this discretion belongs exclusively to investigating agencies, while separate trials would cause evidence duplication and risk inconsistent findings. 
• Segregation without legally recognised justification (distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice) was legally unsustainable and violated Article 21's fair trial guarantee, being based on misapplication of expedition principles that don't override mandatory joint trial norms. 

What was the Court's Interpretation of Joint Trial Principles ? 

• General Rule and Exception: Separate trial under Section 218 CrPC is the foundational rule, with joint trials being permissible exceptions only when offences constitute the same transaction or satisfy conditions under Sections 219-223 CrPC, subject to judicial discretion rather than automatic application. 
• Timing and Reasoning Requirement: The decision between joint or separate trial must ordinarily be made at the commencement of proceedings with cogent reasons recorded, preventing arbitrary mid-trial changes that could compromise procedural fairness and judicial consistency. 
• Dual Consideration Test: Courts must primarily assess whether joint trial would cause prejudice to the accused and whether it would result in delay or wastage of judicial time, balancing fair trial rights against judicial efficiency in the decision-making process. 
• Evidence Importation Bar: Evidence recorded in one trial cannot be transferred to another trial, creating serious procedural complications if trials are bifurcated after commencement, emphasizing the importance of initial decision-making regarding trial format. 
• Limited Interference Standard: Conviction or acquittal orders cannot be set aside merely because alternative trial formats were possible; appellate interference is justified only upon demonstrating actual prejudice or miscarriage of justice resulting from the trial format adopted. 

What is Section 243 BNSS ? 

• Section 243(1) of BNSS permits multiple offences committed by the same person in one series of connected acts forming the same transaction to be charged and tried together in a single trial, promoting judicial economy and preventing multiplicity of proceedings while ensuring consistency in verdicts for interconnected criminal acts. 
• Sub-section (2) specifically addresses cases where an accused charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation under Sections 235(2) or 242(1) also commits falsification of accounts to facilitate or conceal the primary offences, allowing all such related charges to be tried together in one comprehensive trial. 
• Sub-section (3) enables charging and joint trial when the same acts constitute offences falling under two or more separate legal definitions from any law in force, preventing fragmented prosecution of conduct that violates multiple statutory provisions simultaneously and ensuring comprehensive adjudication. 
• Sub-section (4) provides dual charging capability where several acts individually constitute separate offences but when combined form a different composite offence, permitting the accused to be tried for both the individual component offences and the composite offence in a single trial. 
• The section uses permissive language ("may be charged") indicating prosecutorial discretion while preserving the court's inherent power to order separate trials if joint proceedings would cause prejudice to the accused, thereby maintaining the paramount principle of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. 
• Joint trials under Section 243 allow comprehensive presentation of related evidence admissible across multiple charges, enable strategic cross-examination addressing all offences simultaneously, and prevent contradictory findings while requiring specific verdicts for each charge despite the consolidated trial process. 
• Sub-section (5) preserves the operation of Section 9 of BNS 2023, ensuring that joinder provisions complement general criminal procedure principles and maintain harmony with substantive criminal law while facilitating efficient administration of justice without compromising individual rights and procedural safeguards.