RAMESHWAR BRIJMOHAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The applicant Rameshwar has been convicted by the Subdivisional Magistrate, Wardha, of three offences under Section 409, I. P. C., and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and to a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count: the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. The convictions and sentences have been maintained by the Sessions Judge in appeal. The applicants has now made an application for revision to this Court. Several grounds are stated in the application for revision, but after the first hearing, when notice had been issued to the District Magistrate, an additional ground was put in by the learned Counsel for the applicant to the effect that the trial being for three different acts of alleged misappropriation and three items of falsification of accounts it was illegal and that the conviction of the applicant was bad, I have heard the counsel for the applicant and the Standing Counsel for the Crown on this ground.

(2.) ALTHOUGH , as appears from the judgment and finding of the trial Court, the applicant has been convicted under Section 409, I. P. C., only, he has been charged under Sections 409 and 477-A, I.P.C., in respect of each item: item 1 being of Rs. 4,000 alleged to have been misappropriated on or about 7th September 1930. The second of Rs. 1,000 alleged to have been misappropriated on or about 21st October 1930 and the third of Rs. 1,000 alleged to have been misappropriated on or about 7th September 1930. It will be sufficient to state one of the charges, viz., the first charge, which runs: That you on or about 7th September 1930 at Wardha being a cashier in the employment of the firm of Sadhuram Tularam at Wardha and in such capacity entrusted with the cash of the firm committed a criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 4,000 and wilfully and with intent to defraud your master falsified the accounts of the shop in respect of it, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 409 and 477 (A), I. P. C....

(3.) THE learned Standing Counsel for the Crown contended, first, that the case was governed by Section 222 (2), Criminal P. C., and that, although there were three items of criminal breach of trust, they could under that section be considered as one offence. The answer to that contention however is twofold: first, that as a matter of fact the offences were not so treated by the Magistrate, but each item was separately charged, and, secondly, that Section 222 has no application to an offence under Section 477-A. For the latter proposition I would refer to Queen-Empress v. Mati Lal Lahiri (1899) 26 Cal 560 and Raman Behari Das v. Emperor AIR 1915 Cal 296. The other contention put forward by the learned Standing Counsel was that the offences were really continuing offences and that the misappropriation and falsification formed part of the same transaction and therefore the charge was correct under Section 235, Criminal P. C.