SUBEDAR AHIR; CHHATRADHARI MISSER Vs. EMPEROR; EMPEROR ON THE COMPLAINY OF GANESH LOHAR AND BARKA MANJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in the hearing of these two Rules is whether Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorises one trial of not more than three offences of the same kind committed within the space of 12 months when the offences have been committed against different persons. The judicial decisions on this (Question are not uniform. In the case of Empress of India, v. Murari 4 A. 147 it was laid down by the Court that "the combination of three offences of the same kind for the purpose of one trial can only be where they have been committed in respect of one and the same person, and not against different prosecutors." A different view was taken by this Court in the case of Manu Miya v. Empress 9 C. 371 : 11 C.L.R. 52. The case of Queen-Empress v. Juala Prasad 7 A. 174 : A.W.N. (1884) 321 the next authority in order of date, is not opposed to the decision in Empress of India v. Murari 4 A. 147 for in the case of Quean-Empress v. Juala Prasad 7 A. 174 : A.W.N. (1884) 321 the several sums that had been embezzled had become the property of the Government and there was, therefore, only one complainant. The next case is Nanda Kumar Sircar v. Emporor 11 C.W.N. 1128 : 6 Cr. L.J. 321 to which decision I was a party. In that case a similar view was taken to that expressed in the case of Empress of India v. Murari 4 A. 147. That decision was followed in the case of Ali Mahomed v. Emperor 1 Ind. Cas. 335 : 13 C.W.N. 418 : 9 Cr. L.J. 277 but dissented from in the case of Sri Bhagwan Singh v. Emperor 3 Ind. Cas. 319 : 13 C.W.N. 507 : 10 Cr. L.J. 272 : 9 C.L.J. 149 : 5 M.L.T. 349.

(2.) On a further consideration I am of opinion that the decision in the case of Nanda Kumar Sircar v. Emperor 11 C.W.N. 1128 : 6 Cr. L.J. 321 cannot be supported, No doubt Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is taken from Section 5 of the Statute 24 and 25 Vict., Clause 96. The words "against the same person" which appear in Section 5 of 24 and 25 Vict., Clause 96, do not appear in Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I think, is not limited to cases where the offences have been committed against the same person.