SAMIRUDDIN SARKAR Vs. NIBARAN CHANDRA GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the conviction of the petitioner under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside, the first ground being that the trial should have been confined to three instances of alleged misappropriation occurring within the period of one year.

(2.) The charge recites that the accused realized by certain rent receipts, 23 in number, the sum of Rs. 103, of which the accused misappropriated the sum of Rs. 67. We think such a charge comes clearly within the provisions of Clause (2) of Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedural By specifying the rent receipts the charge went beyond what was necessary, and was to this extent favourable to the accused, because it gave him an opportunity of meeting the accusation regarding the misappropriation of a gross sum of Rs. 67. The case of Emperor V/s. Gulzari Lal (1902) I.L.R. 24 All. 254 is in point and supports this view of the matter.

(3.) The second ground is that the Sessions Judge does not appear to have given due consideration to the allegations of the accused that the rent receipts were tampered with by the ryots and to the fact that only one witness gave evidence regarding each receipts.