EMPEROR Vs. DHANESHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Read :-letter from the District Magistrate, Raipur, to the Registrar, Judicial Commissioner's Court, dated the 12th June 1926.)

(2.) THE District Magistrate represents that in Criminal Case No. 8 of 1926, in the Court of Mr. H. G. Nargundkar, Magistrate, 1st Class, Raipur, the accused Dhaneshram has been charged with offences as follows:

(3.) THERE is another misjoinder which the learned District Magistrate has not noticed. Section 234 of the Criminal P.C. allows for the trial of three offences of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months. Section 285 allows for the trial of one person on more offences than one which have been committed in one series of acts, so connected together as to form a connected transaction. These two sections must be construed apart, and there is nothing in the Code which would allow the two to be added together, so to speak, in order to provide for a trial of one person on more than three charges, even though some of the charges may have formed one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction. In other words, there is nothing in Chapter 19 of the Criminal P. C which would validate the trial of. an (accused on six separate charges.