STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. UMARSAHEB BURANSAHEB INAMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, on a certificate granted by the High Court of Bombay, raises the question whether the contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter called the Code, in the framing of the charge against an accused, vitiates the trial.

(2.) The facts leading to the appeal, in brief, are as follows. The respondents were charged and tried at the same trial of the offences under S. 120-B read with S. 406, I. P.C., and of an offence under S. 406, I. P. C., committed in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy they had entered into. They were also tried, but acquitted of other offences charged with. They appealed against their conviction of the offence under S. 120-B read with S. 406, I.P.C., and of the offence under Section 406, I. P. C. The charge under S. 406, Indian Penal Code was with respect to the commission of breach of trust of a sum of Rs. 2,18,369/- between the period March 6, 1949, and June 30,1950. It was contended before the High Court that the charge framed contravened the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 222 of the Code which allowed a combined charge with respect to the amount embezzled within a period of a year. The High Court agreed with this contention and, holding the trial void, set aside the conviction of the respondents and acquitted them of those offences. The High Court, however, maintained the order of acquittal in respect of the other offences. The State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) has filed this appeal against the order setting aside the conviction of the respondents.

(3.) It is not necessary for us to determine in this appeal the general question whether the contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of S. 222 of the Code, in the framing of the charge, will always make the trial void, as, in this particular case, the offence under S. 406, I.P.C., charged against the respondents was said to have been committed in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy entered into by them. It will, therefore. suffice, for the purpose of this case, to consider whether such a defect in the charge vitiates the present trial.