Emperor vs Deva Kanta Jha

In our opinion the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is correct.

Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code, describes the offences to which it applies by the short marginal descriptions given in the Indian Penal Code in the sections dealing with those offences. Section 562 might, no doubt, have referred to the offences by the number of the respective sections of the Penal Code, but that is no reason far holding that the section as it stands warrants (he construction that dishonest misappropriation and cheating include every offence under the respective headings of "Criminal Misappropriation" and "Cheating" in the Penal Code.

The learned Counsel who has appeared for the accused urges that if it bad not been the intention of the Legislature to give (his wide meaning to the words, the section would have run as fellows:

In any case in which a person is convicted of theft, theft in a building or any other offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with not more than two years'' imprisonment.

That might, no doubt, have served the intention of the craftsman, but we do cot think that there is any difficulty in under-standing his meaning. He first of all specifies the particular offences and he then adds a general restrictive clause to cover offences other (ban those particular offences. On the other hard if dishonest misappropriation and cheating include offences graver than simple dishonest misappropriation and simple cheating, than theft should also include theft in a building and the enumeration of this later offence was unnecessary.

The following authorities are also in favour of the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge: Harnam Singh v. Emperor 10 Ind. Cas. 114 : 12 Cr.L.T. 213 : 16 P.R. 1911 : 155 P.L.R. 1911 : 55 P.W.R. 1911. Cr, Emperor v. Ranjan Dadubhai 31 Ind. Cas. 381 : 17 Bom. L.R. 921 : 16 Cr.L.J. 781,

In the Calcutta High Court the procedure of Section 562 has been applied to trials other than trials under the Criminal Procedure Code, but we have been shown no case under this Code which has given to Section 562 the wider interpretation which it is now sought to give.

So far as we can find the only case which favours the wider view is the judgment of Piggott, J., in Har Narayan v. Ramji Das 23 Ind. Cas. 743 : 12 A.L.J. 465 : 15 Cr.L.J. 375, and we respectfully venture to differ from this judgment.

We set aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate directing the release of the prisoner on his entering into a bond with two sureties and direct that the case be remitted to him or his successor in-office in order that it may be dealt with according to law.