Skip to content


Rahiman Bibi Vs. Mobarak Mondal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in34Ind.Cas.336
AppellantRahiman Bibi
RespondentMobarak Mondal and anr.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 234 - penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 379, 380, offences under, for theft of same person's property on two successive days, if triable together, where accused more than one--misioinder of charges. - .....summarily by the magistrate on two charges--theft in a building (under section 380, indian penal code) committed on 13th november 1915, and theft of paddy in a field (under section 379, indian penal code) committed on 14th november 1915,--the property the building and the paddy belonging to one and the same complainant. the judge points out that the trial on these two charges of the two persons was illegal within the meaning of the sections in the criminal procedure code relating to joinder of charges. technically speaking, the judge is correct. section 234, criminal procedure code, has been held to apply only to one person and the offences are also technically not of the same kind. it is difficult to see how the accused could have been prejudiced, as it appears from the magistrate's.....
Judgment:

1. This is a reference in the matter of two persons Mobarak Mondal and Sabak Mondal. They were tried summarily by the Magistrate on two charges--theft in a building (under Section 380, Indian Penal Code) committed on 13th November 1915, and theft of paddy in a field (under Section 379, Indian Penal Code) committed on 14th November 1915,--the property the building and the paddy belonging to one and the same complainant. The Judge points out that the trial on these two charges of the two persons was illegal within the meaning of the sections in the Criminal Procedure Code relating to joinder of charges. Technically speaking, the Judge is correct. Section 234, Criminal Procedure Code, has been held to apply only to one person and the offences are also technically not of the same kind. It is difficult to see how the accused could have been prejudiced, as it appears from the Magistrate's order that the charge of theft in the building, which was for the removal of some doors, was not seriously pressed. The trial proceeded mainly on the question of taking of the paddy from the field. However, as the accused press for a fresh trial and technically speaking, the recommendation of the learned Sessions Judge is correct, we set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the accused be re-tried on the charge of theft of paddy from the field committed on 14th November 1915.


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