K. Srirangachariar vs Emperor

Pandrang Row, J.—The petitioner was committed to the Chingleput Sessions Court to take his trial on two separate charges accusing him of

two distinct offences, viz. the offence of theft of a blank 2nd class railway ticket from the South Indian Railway Company''s booking office at

Conjeeveram punishable u/s 380, I.P.C. and the offence of forgery in respect of certain entries alleged to have been made by him in that ticket with

intent that fraud may be committed, punishable u/s 467, I.P.C.

The trial of the petitioner was proceeded with at first only in respect of the first offence, i.e., the offence of theft. This trial in respect of the

offence of theft which was held by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chingleput, with the aid of a jury ended in acquittal. Thereupon the trial of the

petitioner in respect of the second offence, the offences of forgery, was taken up by the Sessions Judge, Chingleput. The petitioner contended that

his acquittal in the earlier trial was a bar to the subsequent trial. This contention was repelled by the Sections Judge in a reasoned order dated 20th

December 1933.

The present revision petition attacks the correctness of this order of the Sessions Judge and seeks to have it reversed. The only argument is that

Sections 236 and 237, Criminal P.C. apply to the; present case and that consequently the previous acquittal is a bar u/s 403(1), Criminal P.C. This

argument was considered by the learned Sessions Judge and did not meet with acceptance.

This is not a case in which there can be any doubt as to which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute : on the contrary

the facts which can be proved clearly disclose two distinct offences and only two, viz., the offence of theft and the offence of forgery. In other

words, the case is one to which Section 235(1), Criminal P.C, applies, the case for the prosecution being that the petitioner first stole a blank

railway ticket from the booking office to which he had access as a relative of the station master, and then committed forgery by making certain

entries therein so that a fraud may be committed on the railway company. An analogous case would be one in which a person is charged with theft

of a blank cheque form and subsequent forgery thereof. It is clear from Section 403(2), Criminal P.C. that a previous acquittal is no bar to a trial

for any distinct offence for which a separate charge might have been made in the former trial u/s 235(1), Criminal P.C. Section 235(1) and Section

236 Criminal P.C., art mutually exclusive, and if a case is governed by one of them it cannot be governed by the other. Section 237, Criminal P.C.,

obviously applied only to cases governed by Section 236, Criminal P.C. I am of opinion that the order of the Sessions Judge sought to be set aside

in revision is right. The petition is therefore dismissed.