EMPEROR Vs. MANANT KMEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused, who, at the material time, was the Manager of the Surat Branch of the Industrial and Exchange Bank of India, was tried in the Court of the First Class Magistrate at Surat on a chargo which alleged as follows :- That you, on or about the period December 1, 1921, to October 31, 1922, being the Manage: of the Surat Branch of the Industrial and Exchange Bank of India, wilfully and with intent to defraud the Bank, altered the entries in certain books of accounts of the Bank and omitted to have certain entries made, and misappropriated the amounts as shown below, viz :- and thus committed criminal breach of trust in respect to the said amounts another by committed offences punishable under Secs.408 and 477 A of the Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance.

(2.) The Magistrate convicted him under as. 408 and 477A in respect of the first two items in the charge, and awarded punishment for each of the four offences.

(3.) On appeal the Additional Sessions Judge reversed the conviction and sentence for the offence of criminal breach of trust in respect of the first item; but the rest of the appeal was disallowed. In the opinion of the learned Judge, however, the punishment was grossly inadequate; he accordingly made a reference to this Court. Notice was then given to the accused to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced, and it has now come before us for hearing. In showing cause, counsel for the accused contends that his client was charged and tried at one and the same trial for more than three distinct offences which, moreover, were not all of the same kind; the trial was therefore illegal, as being in contravention of the provisions of Section 233, Criminal Procedure Code, and the conviction was contrary to law. This question was not raised at the trial, and the first question is whether the contention is now competent. In my opinion it is. The contention, if made good, vitiates the whole trial.