RAJASTHANI TRADING CO Vs. CHEMOS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri N. K. Thakore with Shri Prakash Naik for the applicants and Shri R. Sathyanarayanan with Shri R. R. Chaurasia for respondent No. 1. Smt. Usha Kejriwal, APP for respondent No. 2 -state.

(2.) RULE. By consent, RULE is heard forthwith.

(3.) SHRI Thakore referred to the provisions of section 219 of the Cr. P. Code, which are to the following effect: - 219. (1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offence, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. (2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code or of any special or local law: Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under section 380 of the said Code, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence. On the basis of the above mentioned provisions SHRI Thakore contended before me that petitioners could be tried at a single trial in respect of any of the three cheques which were dishonoured. In short, according to SHRI Thakore, dishonour of each of the 27 cheques amounts to a separate offence and therefore, there cannot be a single trial in respect of the 27 offences of dishonour of cheques. SHRI Thakore made reference to the full bench of this court in D. K. Chandra V/s. the State, (53 Bombay Law Reporter -928), wherein it was held that trial of the accused on 4 charges at the same trial was not permissible under section 233 of the Cr. P. Code, 1898. However, reliance on the said case is not proper and correct in view of the fact that the facts in the present case are totally different. In the said case, the accused was being tried firstly for an offence under section 409 of the I. P. Code for having committed breach of trust in respect of an amount of Rs. 2500/- on 12.4.1949. For the same amount, he was alternatively charged under section 420 of the I. P. Code. In addition the accused was also charged under section 409 of the I. P. Code for an offence of mis-appropriation in respect of the amount of Rs. 900/- committed on 20.4.1949. He was, further alternatively charged in respect of the same amount under section 420 of the I. P. Code. It was contended on behalf of the prosecution that in substance the accused was charged with two offences of the same kind as other two offences were alternative and that the accused could be convicted only of the two offences. The full bench, however, observed that what was necessary to be considered was not what the result of the trial would be, not on what charges would the accused be convicted or sentenced, but what are the charges which are framed against him and in respect of how many offences he has to face the trial. It was pointed out that there could not be any dispute that the accused would be required to face trial not on two charges but on four charges.