P K SUBRAMANIA AYYAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 409, I. P.C., for criminal breach of trust.

(2.) He was originally charged under. Section 477-A, I. P.C., but; that count was struck out under Section 227, Criminal P.C. A Court may alter a charge at any time before judgment is pronounced; but of course, if in certain circumstances such alteration has occasioned a failure of justice, the appellate or revisional Court may interfere. It is a mistake to cite cases where the Courts have so interfered as though they establish a proposition in law limiting the discretion conferred upon the trial Court by Section 227, and preventing it absolutely from altering the charge at certain stages of the case. A discretion conferred by statute cannot be whittled away by ruling: In Re: An Attorney [1914] 41 Cal. 446 at p. 457,

(3.) In this case I do not find that any injustice was occasioned by striking out the second count. But the real difficulty is that the first count bears no relation to the facts proved. The accused was an accountant of Palni Municipality and is proved to have put up cheques drawn to self for the Chairman's endorsement persuading the Chairman, who was ignorant of English, that they were for contractors; and then drawing the money from the Sub-treasury and misappropriating it.