Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Raghu Nath Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1893)ILR20Cal413
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentRaghu Nath Das
Excerpt:
joinder of charges - criminal procedure code (act x of 1882), section 233, 234, 235, and 557--separate charges for distinct offences--using forged documents--charges for using eleven forged documents in three sets on three separate occasions. - .....we think, therefore, that the sessions judge has rightly held that there was only one using in respect of each set of documents. consequently we see no valid ground for questioning the correctness of the conviction. we observe that no objection on this ground was taken at the trial in the sessions court. we think it unnecessary to consider the other point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant which proceeds on the assumption that the charges related to more than three particular offences. the appeal is therefore dismissed.
Judgment:

Prinsep and Ameer Ali, JJ.

1. The only point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is as to the form of the trial, having regard to the charges and to the findings of the Court convicting the appellant on all those charges. The appellant was charged with having fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine certain documents which he knew or had reason to believe to be forged documents. These documents were put in by him together with a written statement in each of three suits purporting to show that the sums of money for which he was being sued were not due to the plaintiff. It has been contended that a separate charge should have been made for each one of the documents, and that consequently the trial must be set aside as contrary to law and within the terms of the precedent quoted to us. The three sets of documents were proved at the trial to have been put in each suit simultaneously, together with a written statement in the particular case, and these are the 'usings' charged. There is nothing to show that any of them were used at any other time. We think, therefore, that the Sessions Judge has rightly held that there was only one using in respect of each set of documents. Consequently we see no valid ground for questioning the correctness of the conviction. We observe that no objection on this ground was taken at the trial in the Sessions Court. We think it unnecessary to consider the other point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant which proceeds on the assumption that the charges related to more than three particular offences. The appeal is therefore dismissed.


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