MALA MAKALAKATI SUBBADU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is contended that in this case there has been a misjoinder of charges and I find the contention to be sound.

(2.) It appears that house breaking and theft occurred in two villages 4 miles apart on two successive nights. The 1st accused was charged with house breaking by night and theft, and the 2nd accused, his concubine, was charged with house breaking by night and theft or in the alternative with receiving Stolen property.

(3.) Seeing that no witnesses came forward to say that they had seen the thieves in the act of committing the offences of house breaking and theft it is not clear why the male prisoner was not also charged in the alternative under Sections 457 and 380 or Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code, but perhaps, the Magistrate may have considered that the female prisoner was less likely to have taken an active part in the theft and house breaking.