THE STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. NATHU, ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case has been referred to the larger Bench by the reference order of Sandhawalia, J. dated 8th September, 1969. Briefly stated the facts are that a dacoity was alleged to have been committed in village Pehluwala at the shop of Rura Mal in Tehsil Faridkot. It is alleged that Baggu accused, armed with a Gandasa, Nathu accused with a pistol, Shada and Pathana accused with a rifle each and Bohar accused participated in the offence. Nathu and Baggu accused are alleged to have entered the shop of Rura Mai P.W. where Gokal Chand P.W. and Surrinder Pal were sitting. The inmates of the shop were asked to go inside, but Gokal Chand P.W. managed to escape. Before he could run away, he was fired at by Shada and Pathana accused from their rifles and he suffered two lacerated wounds on his right thigh. It is alleged that Nathu and Baggu accused gave beating to Rura Mai P.W. and robbed off him of his golden locket, one pair of golden rings and one pair of golden Balis besides cloth and Rs. 200 in cash.

(2.) AFTER investigation, a challan under Sections 307, 394, 397 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act, was presented against all the five accused persons. The learned Magistrate after recording the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses found that an offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code has been committed by Nathu, Baggu, Shada and Pathana accused persons; an offence under Sections 397/109 of the Indian Penal Code by Bohar accused; an offence under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code by Nathu, Baggu, Shada and Pathana accused and under Section 27 of the Arms Act by Shada and Pathana accused. The learned Magistrate committed all the five accused persons for trial to the Court of Session.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the point involved in the case, the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be referred to Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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, except in the cases mentioned in Sections 234, 235, 236, and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus the basic provision is that every distinct offence of which any person is accused shall be charged and tried separately. Sections 234, 235, 236, and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are exceptions to this rule.