MAKHAN LAL GORE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One case under Sections 120B/420, 420, 467/471 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and two others was allotted to the Third Additional Special Court, Calcutta, by a Government notification dated December 13, 1961. On the basis of this allotment a complaint was filed before the Special Court and case No. 4 of 1962 was started against them on March 30, 1962. The prosecution started examining witnesses in this case on June 27, 1962. One other ease under the same sections of the Indian Penal Code was allotted to the same Special Court against the petitioners and the same two other persons by a Government Notification dated May, 9 1962. On June 26, 1962 the Director of Public Prosecution on behalf of the State filed a petition before the Special Court for joint trial of these two cases. The Special Court rejected this petition on the short ground that till then no complaint was filed before it on the basis of the second allotment and the Special Court had not till then taken cognizance of the alleged offence in the second case. Thereafter on July 10, 1962 a complaint was filed before the Special Court on the basis of the second allotment and case No. 11 of 1962 was started against the petitioners and those two other persons. The Special Court thereafter continued the cases separately. One of the said two other accused persons was examined as an approver and 31 other witnesses were examined in case No. 4 till July, 27, 1962. The approver was examined in case No. 11 on August 16, 1962. On this date the petitioners filed an application before the Special Judge saying that the second allotment and the second cognizance were bad in law as the offences were the same. The learned Special Judge rejected the petition but directed that if during the trial it appeared from evidence that the offences were the same the petitioners would be discharged or acquitted. Thereafter the petitioners moved this court for a Rule on the State to show cause why the proceeding in case No. 11 should not be quashed or why the proceeding in cases Nos. 4 and 11 should not be tried jointly. The Rule that was issued was limited to show cause why the two eases should not be tried jointly. 17 more witnesses have in the meantime been examined in case No. 4.

(2.) The prosecution case in case No. 4 is that the petitioners and the other two accused persons entered into a conspiracy between September 7, 1960 and October 1. 1960 to commit offences of cheating, forgery and/or using forged documents as genuine and in pursuance of that conspiracy, forgery and cheating were committed in respect of five money orders and five forged documents were used as genuine. These overt acts are said to have been committed during the period from September 7, 1960 to October 1, 1960.

(3.) The prosecution case in Case No. 11 is that the petitioners and the other two accused persons entered into a conspiracy between October 11, 1060 and October 15, 1960 to commit offences of cheating, forgery and/or using forged documents as genuine and in pursuance of that conspiracy ommitted forgery and cheating in respect of one money order on October 15, 1960 and also used the forged document as genuine.