KORA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Korah Korah, the appellant in these appeals was the accused in Sessions Cases 46 and 47 of 1950 on the file of the Kottayam Sessions Court. In the former case he has been convicted for committing criminal breach of trust by a clerk or servant punishable under S.409 of the Travancore Penal Code and in the latter for the offence of falsification of accounts punishable under S.480. In each case he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Sessions Case No. 46 a fine of Rs. 1000/- has also been imposed on him. Criminal Appeal No. 246 is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in that case while Criminal Appeal No. 245 is against the decision in Sessions Case No. 47.

(2.) When these appeals came up before us we first took up for hearing Criminal Appeal No. 246 and at the conclusion of the hearing of that appeal we expressed our view that the conviction in either case will have to be quashed on account of certain defects in the charges framed by the Sessions Court and that, as then advised, we were inclined to direct the cases to be retried after the charges are suitable amended. The appellants counsel then urged that in the circumstances of the case and at this distance of time it would be hard upon his client if the cases were to be re-tried. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept that view-point and we proceed to state briefly the considerations which induce us to quash the convictions and order re-trial.

(3.) The appellant was the chief cashier of the Kottayam Branch of Travancore Forward Bank Ltd., Kottayam, and the case against him was that he committed criminal misappropriation of large amounts that came into his hands in that capacity, and that with a view to screen these misappropriations, he falsified the accounts of the Bank and also committed certain forgeries. The enquiry preliminary to the committal for trial was conducted by the First Class Magistrate, Kottayam, in P.E. No. 2 of 1124 and the learned Magistrate framed the consolidated charge for all the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant and passed one committal order. When the case came up before the Sessions Court, the Special Public Prosecutor who was in charge of the prosecution moved the Sessions Judge that separate charges should be framed in respect of the various offences and pointed out that a joint trial for all the offences would illegal. The misappropriations were alleged to have been committed between 3rd April and 20th May 1948 and the gross amount misappropriated came to one lakh of rupees. That gross sum was made up of four distinct items alleged to have come into the appellants hands on different dates and the Public Prosecutor wanted one charge to be framed in respect thereof under S.219(2) of the Travancore Criminal Procedure Code. The court acceded to that request and Sessions Case 46 purported to be in respect of a single charge for the gross sum misappropriated between the two dates mentioned above. The charge in Sessions Case 47 related to the alleged falsification of accounts regarding three out of the four sums of money alleged to have been misappropriated. A third charge was also framed and that under S.469 of the Travancore Penal Code, i.e., for committing forgery of valuable security. That case (Sessions Case 48) would seem to have been withdrawn after the lower court disposed of the other two cases.