JAGGU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Jagsu Ram, an employee in the Rajasthan Secretariat, is alleged to have drawn more suspension allowance for the months of October, 1965, December. 1965. January, 1966, and February, 1966, by adding in the pay scrolls the digit "1" before the figures "rs. 48. 50 P. " "rs. 48. 50 P. ," "rs. 50. 50 P. " and "rs. 75. 50 P. " respectively during the relevant periods. In all he drew Rs. 400/-, in excess of the amounts payable to him. On April 4, 1966, he again added the digit "1" in the pay scroll before the figure "rs. 64. 02 P. " payable to him. Mr. Mukut Kishore, Cashier, P. W. 1. having seen the acquittance roll on April 4, 1966, detected the last forgery. He produced Jaggu Ram before Mr. N. N. Mathur, P. W. 3, Accounts Officer. Secretariat, Jaipur. The appellant confessed his guilt before him. No action was, however, taken by Mr. Mathur on that complaint. He only reprimanded the appellant and ordered that Rs. 64. 02 P. only should be paid to him and not Rs. 164. 02 P. Later on, after the scrutiny of relevant papers it was discovered that Jaggu Ram had also drawn an excess amount of Rs. 400/, during previous months by adding the digit "1" before the above mentioned figures. Jaggu Ram admitted the fact of his having done so before Mr. Mathur. Thereafter Mr. Mathur took Jaggu Ram to P. W. 4 Mr. Sharaf Ali, Deputy Secretary. G. A. D. , Secretariat, Jaipur. Jaggu Ram admitted his culpability before Mr. Sharaf Ali. Mr. Sharaf Ali recorded his statement Ex. P. 13, wherein he deposed that in each of the scrolls Nos. 160 (for October, 1965 ). 90 (for December, 1965), 71 (for January, 1966) and 61 (for February, 1966) he had added the digit "1" before the actual amount due and recovered Rs. 400/-, in excess, which money he was prepared to repay in monthly instalments. Jaggu Ram also admitted that he had added digit "1" in scroll No. 1 (for April 1, 1966) before the figures "rs. 64. 02 P. " Ex. P/13 bears the signature of Jaggu Ram as also that of Mr. Sharaf Ali. On August 12, 1966, Mr. Sharaf Ali lodged first information report with the police station Ashok Nagar. The police registered a case and started investigation. On completion of the investigation a challan was presented by the police to the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate, Jaipur City. Learned Munsiff-Magistrate conducted preliminary enquiry and committed accused Jaggu Ram to the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, to face trial under Sections 420 and 468, I. P. C. The case was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Jaipur City. On January 5, 1968, accused Jaggu Ram was charged under Sections 420 and 467, I. P. C. to which he pleaded not guilty. The charges, related to the amounts pertaining to the months of October, 1965, December, 1963, January 1966 and February, 1966. In support of its case the prosecution examined 5 witnesses. In his statement, recorded under Section 342, Cr. P. C. the accused substantially denied the prosecution allegations. He did not produce any evidence in his defence. After the closure of the case by the prosecution and the defence, counsel for the accused drew the attention of the trial Court to the fact that the accused could not have been tried for more than three offences during one trial, by virtue of the bar Provided by Section 234 read with Section 235, Cr. P. C. Thereupon the trial Court amended the charge on August 4, 1970. The indictment covered excess payment and forging pay scrolls for the months of October, 1965. January 1966 and February. 1966. After the amendment the accused desired to re-cross-examine two prosecution witnesses, Mr. N. N. Mathur (P. W. 3) and Mr. Sharaf Ali (P. W. 4 ). He was allowed to do so. On November 27, 1970. the accused closed his defence. Arguments were heard on December 5, 1970 and the judgment was pronounced by the trial Court on December 11, 1970, convicting the appellant under Section 467, I. P. C. and sentencing him to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of which to suffer further imprisonment for a period of two months. He was also convicted under Section 420, I. P. C. and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences of imprisonment were made concurrent.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the above verdict, accused Jaggu Ram has taken the present appeal. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is two-fold. His first grievance is that as many as six charges were framed by the trial Court. Three related to the forgery of pay scrolls and three pertained to the offence of cheating on three different occasions. The accused could not have been charged with six distinct crimes and tried at one trial. Under Section 234, Cr. P. C. he could have been charged with and tried at one trial for offences of the same kind not exceeding three. Learned Counsel further urged that offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code or of any special or local law. as Provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 234, Cr. P. C Learned Counsel also submitted that the provisions of Section 235, Cr. P. C. would extend to any number of offences which the accused is alleged to have committed in one series of acts so connected together as to form part of the same transaction. The offences here relate to different periods. Because of this material illegality, the counsel adds, the accused has been prejudiced and his trial deserves to be Quashed. In support of his argument he relied on H. F. Bellgard v. Emperor AIR 1941 Cal 707 and D. K. Chandra v. The State. The second complaint of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has failed to prove that the digit "1" before each of the above mentioned figures has been added by the accused. The trial Court solely relied upon the extra-judicial confession, alleged to have been made by the appellant before Mr. N. N. Mathur (P. W. 3) and Mr. Sharaf Ali (P. W. 4 ). These persons were persons in authority and the making of the confession was caused by inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused and. therefore, no conviction could have been based upon it.

(3.) AS regards the first point it is no doubt true that the accused was charged with six offences, three related to the offence under Section 420, I. P. C. and three to one under Section 467, I. P. C. It has been observed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in AIR 1941 Cal 707 (supra) that Section 234, Cr. P. C. contemplates a joint trial for three separate offences under a particular section of the Penal Code. The joint trial is illegal on the ground that it was not desirable to try the accused in one trial for the offences regarding the pay of the gangs for three different months; and on the grounds that the charges framed did not specify with sufficient clarity the nature of the offences alleged to have been committed: and on the ground that the accused were materially prejudiced in their defence by being called upon to meet charges of so general and all embracing character. In (supra) it has been laid down that each of the Sections 234, 235 and 236 is self contained and to combine the operation of these sections would necessarily involve the widening of the scope of each and would result in the destruction of the essential elements of these sections.