Skip to content


Queen-emprress Vs. Juala Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR7All174
AppellantQueen-emprress
RespondentJuala Prasad
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, sections 233, 234 - joinder of charges--offences of the same kind committed in respect of different persons. - .....of the code, which provides that 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, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for, at all events, as many as three of them. in this case we have a public servant accused of having, on three occasions, embezzled moneys which were public property, for, as soon as they were paid to him, they ceased to be the property of the persons who paid them. all three acts of embezzlement were committed within one year, and each was committed in the same circumstances as the others. how can it be said that these offences were not 'of the same kind?' they did not merely resemble each other, but were the same offence. i see no reason why they.....
Judgment:

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.

1. I have no doubt that this case was properly decided, and that three charges of this kind may be joined under Section 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The question is of the simplest possible kind, being one merely of the proper construction to be placed upon the two Sections 233 and 234 of the Code Section 233 provides that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately, except in the cases mentioned in Sections 234, 235, 236 and 239.' This section contains the general law, and the reason of it is that the mind of the Court might be prejudiced against the prisoner if he were tried in one trial upon different charges resting on different evidence. It might be difficult for the Court trying him on one of the charges not to be unfairly influenced by the evidence against him on the other charges.

2. The Legislature has, however, made certain exceptions. One of these is contained in Section 234 of the Code, which provides that 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, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for, at all events, as many as three of them. In this case we have a public servant accused of having, on three occasions, embezzled moneys which were public property, for, as soon as they were paid to him, they ceased to be the property of the persons who paid them. All three acts of embezzlement were committed within one year, and each was committed in the same circumstances as the others. How can it be said that these offences were not 'of the same kind?' They did not merely resemble each other, but were the same offence. I see no reason why they should not be joined in the same trial; and I am of opinion that the Magistrate was right in joining them. As regards the case of Empress v. Murari I.L.R. 4 All. 147 to which reference has been made, that was decided by Mr. Justice Straight under a different statute, and his decision in that case will be unaffected by ours in this.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //