DINKARRAY RUGHNATH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On behalf of the accused Mr. Mankad raised certain questions of law regarding the jurisdiction of the learned trial Judge and misjoinder of charges. Briefly stated his contentions were as follows:

(2.) The question raised by Mr. Mankad is in reality two-fold (1) whether the learned Special judge was right in joining in one trial charges; in respect of offences under sec. 409 of the Penal Code with offences under sec. 5(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with reference to the three sums of Rs. 40/Rs. 15/and Rs. 20/which according to Mr. Mankad were acts of misconduct each in itself a completed offence; and (2) whether the learned Special Judge had jurisdiction to try the accused on the charge under sec. 477A of the Penal Code as his jurisdiction was confined to offences enumerated in secs. 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1952 and the offence under sec. 477A was not one of them and therefore was triable by the learned Sessions Judge Kutch as the offence arose within the jurisdiction of that judge.

(3.) Relying on Umer Saheb Bura Saheb Inamdar v. State LXI Bom. L.R. 1001 Mr. Mankad contended that this was an infringement of a provision as to the manner of trial and not merely an irregularity as to misjoinder of charges which can be cured under sec. 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore such an infringement vitiated the entire trial. Now it is clear from the record that as the Special Judge Kutch had given sanction to prosecute the accused this case which was originally numbered as Special Case No. 8/1960 was assigned to the Special Judge Jamnagar who was specially appointed to try that case. As we have said the charge-sheet filed in the Kutch Court contained charges of criminal breach of trust of the aggregate sum of Rs. 467/consisting of Rs. 40/Rs. 15/Rs. 20/and Rs. 392/of misconduct in respect of these sums and of falsification of accounts by making two false entries in respect of Rs. 40/and Rs. 15/on the one hand and of Rs. 392/on the other. The learned Special Judge Jamnagar felt that there would be four charges in all viz. one charge under sec. 409 of the Penal Code one under sec. 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and two charges under sec. 477A of the Penal Code and therefore as a matter of caution he split up the charges into two separate trials.