EMPEROR Vs. HUSEINALLI VILAYATALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three accused were committed to stand their trial in the High Court by the learned Presidency Magistrate, Third Additional Court, on January 10, 1942. The learned Magistrate held one enquiry against all the accused and framed charges against accused Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of 17 counterfeit coins under Section 232 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 243 read with Section 114, and also in respect of 584 counterfeit coins under the same sections, and also a charge under Section 235 read with Section 114 ; and he framed a charge against accused No.3 in respect of only 584 counterfeit coins under Section 243 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE learned Clerk of the Crown has altered and amended the charges framed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, and he is further of opinion that the three accused cannot be jointly tried. He has, therefore, suggested that accused Nos. 1 and 2 should be tried jointly in respect of the offence in connection with 17 counterfeit coins and accused No.3 in respect of the offence in connection with 584 counterfeit coins. In framing the charges against accused Nos. 1 and 2 the learned Clerk of the Crown has dropped the charges against them in respect of 584 counterfeit coins framed by the learned Presidency Magistrate.

(3.) IT is conceded both by the prosecution and by the defence that a joint trial of all the three accused would offend against the provisions of Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and Mr. Coyajee contends that the learned Presidency Magistrate having held one enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code and having framed charges against all the accused in that enquiry, the learned Magistrate has contravened the provisions of Section 239 and, therefore, the order of commitment is illegal.