Jamuna Prasad vs Emperor

Dawson Mullick, J.—The petitioner Jamuna Prasad was a peon at the Post Office at Gaya and was charged before the Deputy Magistrate of Gaya with having between the 8th December, 1926, and the 28th December, 1926, embezzled in the course of his employment three sums of Rs. 12, Rs. 22 and Rs. 25 respectively which should have been paid out on account of three money orders issued from Calcutta to certain payees at Gaya. He was also charged in respect of the same sums with having falsified his registers and he was convicted u/s 409 of the Indian Penal Code for criminal breach of trust as a public servant and sentenced to a consolidated term of rigorous imprisonment for nine months. In respect of the charges u/s 477A of falsification of accounts he was also found guilty but no separate sentence was passed for these offences.

There was then an appeal to the Sessions Judge who affirmed the conviction and sentence and the present application is made to us in revision.

It is urged at the outset though somewhat faintly that there has been an error of law in regard to the charges. It is said, that the trial Court was wrong in entering, under one heading all the three items in respect of which the accused has been charged, and that there should have been, a separate heading in respect of each item, The complaint, therefore, amounts to this that instead of stating the substance of the charges against the accused in three separate sentences the Court set out the details in one comprehensive sentence. In my opinion there is no substance in this complaint and the accused had full notice of each particular item and of the offence with which he was charged in respect of it.

It is then suggested that Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure forbids the trial of the three offences in one trial and reliance is placed on Asgar Ali Biswas v. Emperor 20 Ind. Cas. 609 : 40 C. 846 : 17 C.W.N. 827 : 14 Cri. L.J. 449 . It is quite clear, however, that the trial was perfectly legal. The three offences were offences of the same kind within the meaning of Section 234 of the Code and as the offences were committed within the space of one year the Magistrate Was competent to hold only one trial With regard to the authority quoted, it is clear that Section 234 of the Code was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges in that case which has been dissented from in this Court in Anant Potdar Vs. Mangal Potdar, .

The same point is taken with respect to the charges u/s 477A of the Indian Penal Code.

In my opinion there is no substance in either complaint.

The learned Sessions Judge appears to have thought that the framing of one charge containing the details of all three offences was irregular and he observes that the Magistrate would have been better advised to have put each charge under a separate heading. In ray opinion there was no irregularity or illegality which required the aid of Section 537 of the Code of Criminal, Procedure.

[His Lordship then considered the merits of the case and concluded as follows:]

A consolidated sentence of nine months has been passed in respect of the three offences under, Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and there was no irregularity in this. The result is that the conviction and sentence must be affirmed and the application must be dismissed.

Miller, C.J.

I agree.