Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Shuja-ud-dIn Ahmad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1922)ILR44All540
AppellantEmperor
RespondentShuja-ud-dIn Ahmad
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, sections 234 and 235 - joinder of charges--act no. xlv of 1860 (indian penal code), sections 408 and 477 a--illegality. - .....has been a misjoinder of charges which vitiates the trial. the charge on which the accused was committed to the sessions court was admittedly different. the learned judge amended the charge before the trial, and the accused has been convicted and sentenced, it is urged before me that sections 234 and 235 of the code of criminal procedure do not warrant such a joinder of charges, that is, three under section 408 and one under section 477a of the indian penal code. i was at first, inclined to the view that this could 'be done, having regard to the provisions of section 235 read with the provisions of section 234, but i find that in a similar case the contrary view was taken by tudball, j. see emperor v. sheo saran lal (1910) i.l.r. 82 all. 219. i agree with the view of the law taken.....
Judgment:

Gokul Prasad, J.

1. In this case the appellant Shuja-ud-din has been convicted of the offence of criminal breach of trust by a public servant in respect of three items, and also of falsification of accounts in order to conceal the defalcations, under Section 477 A of the Indian Penal Code. He appeals, and one of the grounds pressed before me by the learned vakil for the appellant is that there has been a misjoinder of charges which vitiates the trial. The charge on which the accused was committed to the Sessions Court was admittedly different. The learned Judge amended the charge before the trial, and the accused has been convicted and sentenced, It is urged before me that Sections 234 and 235 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not warrant such a joinder of charges, that is, three under Section 408 and one under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. I was at first, inclined to the view that this could 'be done, having regard to the provisions of Section 235 read with the provisions of Section 234, but I find that in a similar case the contrary view was taken by Tudball, J. See Emperor v. Sheo Saran Lal (1910) I.L.R. 82 All. 219. I agree with the view of the law taken therein I, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences and order the retrial of the appellant on the charges preferred against him in accordance with the law. It will be open to the Sessions Judge to divide the charges into two or three trials as he thinks fit.


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