LAWS(BOM)-1996-9-85

ASHOK K.SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On September 12, 1996
Ashok K.Shah Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Gupte for applicant and Ms. Mantharia, APP, for Respondent No.1/State. The Respondent No.2 has filed his written reply.

(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing an order dated 6/2/1996 passed by the trial court i.e. Matripolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, in Cri.Case No,809/P/92 where the applicant in facing charges under the provision of Section 380, 497 and 506(ii) on the first information lodged by the Respond-ent No.2,and also the order passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, on 11th March,96,Cri.Revision Application No.98/96, reject said Revision and confirming the aforesaid order of the trial Court dated 6/2/96.

(3.) AFTER hearing Mr.Gupte on behalf on behalf of the applicant and Ms.Kantharia, APP, on behalf of the Respondent/State, I feel that the said charges cannot be joined together in one and the same trial under Section 220, Sub-Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in as much as the acts alleged against the applicant do not arise during the same transac-tion. Simply because the complainant says that the offence of theft was committed by the applicant when the applicant/accused used to go to the flat of Respondent no.2 for the purpose of adultery cannot be said to arise during the same transaction. Similarly, the several acts committed by the applicant/accused do not constitute a different offence when combined together as provided under Sub-Section 4 of Section 220 of Cr.P.C. In fact, as seen from the main provision under Section 218 of the Cr.P.C., normally separate charges should be framed for distinct offences and every such charge has to be tried separately and the option is given only to the accused persons under the proviso of the said Section to combine the different charges under one trial. There is no question to prejudice being caused to the prosecution if the said charges, which appare-ntly are different, and cannot be said to have arisen in the course of same acts or during the same transaction, are tried separately.