Babu Lal vs Emperor

Edward Chamier, C.J.—The applicant, in this case was charged u/s 406 of the Indian Penal Code with having on June 2nd, 1916, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of two currency notes delivered to him by one Umed Ali and with having on July 10th, 19 6, committed criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs, 50 handed to him by one Ram Brich. He was convicted on the first charge but was acquitted on the second. His appeal against the conviction on the first charge was dismissed.

The applicant now contends that the trial was illegal. The question is whether the case comes within Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section runs as follows:

(1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three.

(2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code or of any special or local law.

In Nanda Kumar Sirkar v. Emperor 11 C.W.N. 1128 ; 6 Cri. L.J. 321 Mitra and Fletcher, JJ., held that Section 234 was limited to the case of offences committed against the same person, but Fletcher and Beachcroft, JJ., in Subedar Ahir, v. Emperor 28 Ind. Cas. 668 ; 13 C.13 ; 19 C.W.N. 557 ; 16 Cr. L.J. 332 declined to follow that decision, Fletcher, J., saying that he was satisfied that his previous decision could not be supported. In Ali Mahomed v. Emperor 1 Ind. Cas. 335 ; 13 C.W.N. 418 ; 9 Cri. L.J. 277 Holmwood and Sharfuddin, JJ., on November 24th, 1908, held that two charges u/s 411 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of stolen properties belonging to two different persons and stolen at different times should not have been tried together, but in Sri Bhagwan Singh v. Emperor 3 Ind. Cas. 319 ; 13 C.W.N. 507 ; 10 Cri. L.J. 272 ; 9 C.L.J. 149 ; 5 M.L.T. 349 Holmwood and Ryves, JJ., on December 17th, 1908, held that Section 234 was not limited to offences committed against the same person. They did not refer to the decision in Ali Mahomed v. Emperor 1 Ind. Cas. 335 ; 13 C.W.N. 418 ; 9 Cri. L.J. 277: but they declined to follow the decision in Nanda Kumar Sirkar v. Emperor 11 C.W.N. 1128 ; 6 Cri. L.J. 321. The decisions of Fletcher and Beachcroft, JJ., in Subedar Ahir v. Emperor 28 Ind. Cas. 668 ; 13 C.13 ; 19 C.W.N. 557 ; 16 CrI. L.J. 332 and of Holm wood and Ryves, JJ., in Sri Bhagwan Singh v, Emperor 3 Ind. Cas. 319 ; 13 C.W.N. 507 ; 10 CrI. L.J. 272 ; 9 C.L.j. 149 ; 5 M.L.T. 349 are supported by the decisions of the Fall Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Queen-Empress v. Juala I''r.''.sad 7 A. 174 ; (1881) A.W.N821 ; 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 387, Piggott and. Walsh, JJ., in Emperor v. Bechan Pandt 36 Ind. Cas. 879 ; 14 A.L.J. 700 ; 88 A. 457 ; 18 CrI. L.J. 47, the Bombay High Court in Queen Empress v. Dhondi Rat. Un. Cr. Cas. 331 ; Cr. Rg. 21 of 1887 and Seshagiri Iyer, J., In re Raja Rao 36 Ind. Cas. 159, 20 M.L.J. 234 ; 17 CrI. L.J. 479 ; (1916) 2 M.W.N. 252 ; 4 L.W. 337.

The balance of authority is clearly in favour of the view that Section 234 is not limited to offences committed against the same person. Apart from authority it seems to me that there is no justification for reading into Section 234 a provision that the offences must have been committed against the same person. In my judgment the trial was in accordance with the law. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider the question whether the applicant was prejudiced by the joinder of the two charges, but I may say that it has not even been suggested that the applicant was prejudiced.

I would dismiss this application and direct the applicant to surrender to his bail and serve out his sentence.

Sharfuddin, J.

I agree.