Skip to content


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

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in66Ind.Cas.322
AppellantShuja-ud-dIn Ahmad
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898) sections 284, 236 - joinder of charged--irregularity--penal code (act xlv of l960), sections 408, 477. - .....of falsifies ion of accounts in order to conceal the defalcations under section 477a of the indian penal code. ho appeals, and one of the grounds pressed before me by the horned vakil for the appeliant is, that there has been a micjoinder of charges which vitiates the trial. the charge on which the accused was committed to the sections court was admitedly different. the leaned judge amended the charge before the trial, aid the ecsnsed has been convicted and centered, it is nrped before me that sections 214 and 73 of the code of criminal procedure do not warrant such a joinder of charge, that is, three under section 408 and one under section 477a of the indian. penal code, i was at first inelined to the view that this could be done having regard to the provisions of section 235, read with.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the appellant, Shuja-ud-dir, has been convisted of the offense of criminal breach of trust by a public servant three of three items and also of falsifies ion of accounts in order to conceal the defalcations under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code. Ho appeals, and one of the grounds pressed before me by the horned Vakil for the appeliant is, that there has been a micjoinder of charges which vitiates the trial. The charge on which the accused was committed to the Sections Court was admitedly different. The leaned Judge amended the charge before the trial, aid the Ecsnsed has been convicted and centered, It is nrped before me that Sections 214 and 73 of the code of Criminal Procedure do not warrant such a joinder of charge, that is, three under Section 408 and one under Section 477A of the Indian. Penal Code, I was at first inelined to the view that this could be done having regard to the provisions of Section 235, read with the provisions of Section 2:4, but I find that in a similar case the contrary view was taken by Tedball, J, Shea Saran Lal v Emperor (1) 5 Ind. Cas, 893 82 A. 219 : 7 A. L J. 225 : 11 Or. L, J. 286. I agree wish the view of the law taken therein. I, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences and order the re-trial 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 thinke Gt,


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