MANGAL CHANDRA DAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of the Sessions Judge of Koraput-Jeypore convicting the appellant under Sections 409 and 467/471, I. P.C., and sentencing him to various terms of imprisonment and fine.

(2.) The appellant was a temporary postman attached to Jeypore post office during April and May, 1952. It was alleged that during that period he received three money-orders payable to three different persons named Bansulia Dombru, Guru Mohuria and Ratni Ghasiani and that he committed criminal breach of trust of the amounts covered by the three money-orders and either forged the thumb- impressions of the payees on the money orders forms or used those money-order forms as genuine knowing them to contain forged thumb impressions. The full particulars of the money-orders are given below: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_11_TLORI0_1954Html1.htm</FRM> The learned Magistrate framed six charges against the appellant, three of them were under Section 409, I. P. C.? in respect of the alleged commission of breach of trust of the sums of Rs. 10/-, Rs. 25/-and Rs. 50/- respectively covered by the three money-orders. The remaining three charges were under Section 471/467, I. P. C., which dealt with forgery of the acknowledgment receipt and the money order forms in respect of each of the charges.

(3.) Mr. Ray, on behalf of the appellant' urged "that the trial was vitiated by misjoinder of charges and that" Sections 234 and 235, Cr, P. C., on which the learned Sessions Judge has relied would not apply to the facts of this case. It is not the case of the prosecution that the criminal breach of trust in respect of the three money-orders' and the forgery of the thumb-impressions of the payees in respect of each of the money-orders were all done in the course of the same transaction though the general design of the appellant as Postman to misuse his official position and commit criminal breach of trust of the money-orders entrusted with him, especially when the payees were illiterate persons, appears to have been implied in the prosecution case. Doubtless, the offence under Section 409, I. P. C. and the offence under Section 471/467, I. P. C. in respect of each of the money-orders were done in the course of the same transaction. Mr. Ray urged that though the trial of the appellant for the three charges under Section 409, I. P. C. would be permissible under Section 234, Cr. P. C. and his trial for the three charges under Section 471/467, I. P. C. would also be permissible under the same section, joint trial for all the six charges would not be permissible inasmuch. as the offences committed in respect of the first money-order were not part of the same transaction as the offences committed in respect of the second money-order and the third money-order.