Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Puttu Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1924)ILR46All54
AppellantEmperor
RespondentPuttu Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, sections 234 and 239 - misjoinder of charges--illegality--trial invalidated. - .....six accused were tried at one trial for offences under sections 147 and 325 of the indian penal code alleged to have been committed on the 24th of january, and at the same time for offences under sections 147, 323 and 342 of the indian penal code alleged to have been committed on the 25th of january. this joint trial cannot be justified under sections 234 or 239 of the criminal procedure code. the offences are not offences of the same kind, since the offence under section 342 at any rate is an offence quite different from that under section 325. neither were the offences committed in the same transaction. it has been held in several cases that sections 234 and 239 of the indian penal code cannot be combined; e.g., emperor v. jiban kristo bagchi (1912) i.l.r. 40 calc, 318 and emperor.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This application in revision is based on a misjoinder of charges which constitutes an illegality invalidating the entire trial, under the Privy Council ruling in Subrahmania Ayyar v, King-Emperor (1901) I.L.R. 25 Mad. 61. The six accused were tried at one trial for offences under Sections 147 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed on the 24th of January, and at the same time for offences under Sections 147, 323 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed on the 25th of January. This joint trial cannot be justified under Sections 234 or 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The offences are not offences of the same kind, since the offence under Section 342 at any rate is an offence quite different from that under Section 325. Neither were the offences committed in the same transaction. It has been held in several cases that Sections 234 and 239 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be combined; e.g., Emperor v. Jiban Kristo Bagchi (1912) I.L.R. 40 Calc, 318 and Emperor v. Mata Prasad (1908) I.L.R. 30 All. 351. I must, therefore, and hereby do set aside the convictions and direct a retrial of the accused. The offences alleged to have been committed on the 24th of January must be tried separately from those alleged to have been committed on the 25th of January. I regret this result inasmuch as no objection was taken at the time of the trial or even in the appeal to the court below. I have been asked to let the accused on bail. I make no order on this application but leave it to the court before whom the accused may be brought to pass orders on any application that may be made to it.


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