NIRANJAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision on behalf of one Niranjan who has been sentenced by the appellate Court to 9 months Rule I, under Section 411, Penal Code. The application has been argued only on legal grounds which are expressed in the first ground of revision as follows: Because the joint trial of the applicant with Musai and Badri is illegal and the whole trial is vitiated.

(2.) The trial Court framed two charges as follows: A charge sheet against Niranjan, Musai and Badri charging them that on 5 September 1933, they were found in dishonest possession of two bullocks of Dwarka which they knew or had reason to believe to be stolen and therefore were guilty of an offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. There was also a charge sheet framed against; Musai with two heads firstly, that on 16 September 1933, he was in dishonest possession of a bullock belonging to Ramcharittar which he knew or had reason to believe to be stolen and thereby committed an offence under Section 411, I.P.C., and secondly that on the 18 September 1933 he was in in dishonest possession of a bullock belonging to Ramcharittar which be knew or had reason to believe to. be stolen and thereby committed an offence under Section 411, I.P.C. Musai was convicted on all three charges and Niranjan and Badri were also convicted of the offence charged against them.

(3.) These convictions were upheld by the appellate Court. So far as the charge of the 5 September 1933 is made against all the three accused persons it undoubtedly comes under the provision in Section 239(a) Cr. P.C., "persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction." That section lays down that those persons "may be charged and tried together." There was therefore quite legally a joint; charge and a joint trial against; all three accused for the transaction of the 5 September 1933. I find that this fact distinguishes this case from all the rulings which have been quoted because in none of those rulings was this condition satisfied. The, question before this Court is whether as regards the accused Musai it was legal to add the two charges in regard to the 16 September and the 18 September 1933 which concerned him alone and which were also under the same Section 411, I.P.C. As regards Musai Section 234(1) provides as follows: When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, (whether in respect of the same person or not), he may he charged with, and tried at one trial for any number of them Mot exceeding three.