Chandu Lal vs State of Haryana

Ujagar Singh, J. (Oral)

The petitioner was challaned for standing trial under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code (briefly the Code) for embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 34,427.35 during the period from 141970 to 3091970. He was tried but convicted and sentenced under section 408 of the Code by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hansi to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Against his conviction he filed Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 1985 for setting aside his conviction and sentence which was heard by Shri B.L. Gulati, Additional Session Judge, Hissar. He also filed Criminal Appeal No. 74 or 1935 Both these appeals were heard by the said learned Additional Sessions Judge. While hearing the appeals. the appellate Court consolidated them and decided them by one judgment. The judgment shows that evidence of one case was taken into consideration for deciding the other case as usually happens when two cases are decided by one judgment.

There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act II of 1973) for clubbing two separate appeals and deciding the same by one judgment when there are two separate trials, convictions and sentences in separate charges and also in separate challans.

The in matter was considered in Doat Ali alias Sheik Deot Ali Sarkar and others v. King Emperor, AIR 1928 Calcutta 230 by a Division Beach of Calcutta High Court wherein it was held as under

`There were two separate Cases in each of which the accused was convicted by the trial Court. An appeal was brought in each case. The appellate Court tried the two appeals together as one case and he allowed one of the appeals and dismissed the other. Held, that the procedure followed was bad.

"The appeal, which was dismissed, was remanded and directed to be heard but, as the order of acceptance of the other was not before the Division Bench, no order was passed In respect thereof.

In another case namely, Mitthu Lal & another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1975 CLR (VIII) 216, the Supreme Court held in so many words that evidence recorded in one case cannot be taken into account in cross. case and verdict of the Court in a particular case must be founded upon the evidence recorded in it and in separate trials, verdict of the Court in one case must be founded on the evidence recorded in it. In view of these observations, this revision is allowed and the case is remanded to the appellate Court for rehearing and deciding the same on its own merits and without taking the evidence recorded in the other case into consideration. The parties are directed to appear in the appellate Court on 26th August, 1987. The petitioner is allowed to remain on bail against the bond and surety bond already submitted by him before the appellate Court.