STATE Vs. SOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bikaner, dated 20-1-1958. in a case under Section 408 I. P. C. by which he framed an amended charge against the accused for the certain offences of breach of trust alleged to have been committed by him during the period ranging from Kati Sudi 1 Smt. 2007, to Kati Vadi 15 Smt. 2008, and further ordered that the accused be acquitted with respect to the other breaches of criminal trust alleged to have been committed by him for the years Smt. 2007 to Smt. 2011 excluding the period last-mentioned.

(2.) Only a few facts need be mentioned to bring out the point which has been canvassed before us in this case. A combined charge-sheet for all the alleged offences was presented against the accused in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bikaner, on the allegation that he was a Munim of Naraindas Daga and had committed the various breaches of criminal trust with respect to the monies which had been entrusted to him in that capacity. The accused was challaned in the court of the Magistrate on 16-3-1955. Thereafter a single charge was framed against the accused for all the offences alleged to have been committed by him for the period ranging from Smt. 2007 to Smt. 201], which are said to have involved a total amount of Rs. 19,887/-. It seems to have been later realised by the proseeution that this charge was a faulty one, and that if the trial was allowed to proceed on its basis, the entire trial would be bad. Consequently, an application was moved on behalf of the State on 27-3-1957, in which it was prayed that the charge be amended so that it be confined to the defalcations committed in between the month of Kati of the Samwat year 2010 to that of 2011, and it was also submitted that separate challans were proposed to be presented against the accused for the remaining years. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 20-1-1958, directed the amendment of the charge whereby he limited it to the defalcations committed by the accused during the Smt. year 2007-2008, which amounted to a sum of Rs. 5863-13-6 but further ordered that so far as the other defalcations alleged to have been committed by the accused during the other years were concerned, there was no other course open to him except to acquit the accused in the circumstances of the case and jn this view of the matter, the accused was acquitted.

(3.) It is strenuously contended before us on behalf of the State that the view taken by the learned Magistrate in acquitting the accused with respect to the defalcations committed by him during the several other years was unjust and erroneous and should be set aside. Now what the learned trial Magistrate observed was that the request for the splitting up of the charges had not been made at the very inception of the case nor had the court thought of it earlier. He further went on to observe that if the Public Prosecutor had not made the application which he filed for the splitting up of the charges, the trial would have gone on and the accused cculd have only been convicted for the offences proved to have been committed by him during the course o one year and would have been acquitted so far as the other items were concerned. The learned Magistrate then went on to observe that the trial had proceeded in this ca.se at an inordinately slow speed and that the application for the splitting up of the charges really amounted to a withdrawal from the other charges within the meaning of Section 494 Cr. P. C. In this view of the matter, the learned Magistrate ordered the amendment o the charge which had already been framed so as to be limited to the Saimwat year 2007-2008, and he came to the conclusion that the accused could not be convicted so far as the remaining offences alleged to have been committed by him were concerned.