D K CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this ease the accused is charged with hiving committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the sum of Rs. 2,500 on 12th April 1949. He is also charged in the alternative with having cheated in respect of the same sum on the same day. He was also charged with having committed criminal breach of trust On 20th April 1949, in respect of a sum of Rs. 900. He is also charged is the alternative with having cheated in respect of the same sum on the same day.

(2.) The question that arises for the determination of this Full Bench is whether the joinder of these four charges is in accordance with law. A large number of authorities were cited at the bar, but before considering them we might look at the scheme of the Criminal Procedure Code itself with regard to the framing of charges. The basic section is Section 233 which contains a mandatory prevision and lays down the ordinary rule with regard to joinder of charges, and that section provides that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately. It will be noticed that this section makes no distinction between charges which are cumulative, and charges which are in the alternative, The object of this section is to give a fair trial to the accused and not to bring about a situation which might cause the accused prejudice or embarrassment. Therefore, whether the accused is to face charges in the alternative or charges which are cumulative in their nature, the Legislature assumes that charges tried jointly would cause prejudice and embarrassment and therefore has laid down the ordinary rule with regard to trial in Section 233. But that section itself provides that a departure may be made from the ordinary rule in the cases mentioned in Sections 234, 235, 236 and 239. Therefore, unless the departure from the ordinary rule laid down in Section 233 is justified by one of the sections mentioned in that section itself, the departure will be illegal and contrary to law.

(3.) Turning now to the three material sections with which we are concerned, which are Sections 234, 235 and 236, 8. 234 provides for trial of more than one offence in the same trial. This section lays down three limitations. The three limitations are that the offences must be of the same kind, that they must have been committed within the space of one year, and that more than three offences should not be joined in the same trial. The three offences may be joined under this section although they may not arise from the same trans-action as provided by the next section, Section 235, and even though 'the offences may not be charged as a result of any doubt experienced as to which of the offence is committed by reason at a single act or a series of acts committed by the accused. Therefore, this is the only section which provides for disconnected offences being tried together and as I said before this can only be done provided the three limitations laid down in that section are satisfied. Section 235 (1) also provides for trial of more than one offence, but the limitation laid down in that section is that the offences must arise from the same transaction. This section lays down no limitation as to time or number of offences. The only condition is that one series of acts must be so connected together as to form the same transaction and the offences are committed in that series of acts. Sub-section (2) deals with offences falling within two or more separate definitions, and Sub-section (3) deals with acts constituting one offence but when combined constituting a different offence Section 236 provides for a case where a single act or a series of acts is of auch a nature that it is doubtful which of the several offences the facts which when proved will constitute. It will be noticed that as far as Section 236 is concerned, the offence must arise out of a single act or it must arise out of a connected series of acts. It does not deal with disconnected or separate offences.