Skip to content


Patit Paban Ray and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Cal580,84Ind.Cas.849
AppellantPatit Paban Ray and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredBudhai Sheik v. Emperor
Excerpt:
- .....they were charged in respect of the offences said to have been committed on the 27th and 28th days of november, with being members of an unlawful assembly the common object of which was to take away by force the paddy grown on the lands of nazir, nezamuddin and others. it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the offences with which they were charged on the 27th and 28th november, did not arise out of the same transaction but that they were separate transactions and that consequently they could not have been tried under the provisions of the cr. p.c. at that time in force. it is said that the land upon which the offences were committed on the two days was not the same and that the lands were not contiguous and although the accused may have been present on both the occasions,.....
Judgment:

1. This Rule was granted on one ground only, namely, on the ground that the trial was bad and illegal in view of the fact that the two occurrences were entirely distinct and separate and did not form the same transaction. The petitioners before us are four in number and they have been convicted of offences under Sections 144, 143 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to various lines. They were charged in respect of the offences said to have been committed on the 27th and 28th days of November, with being members of an unlawful assembly the common object of which was to take away by force the paddy grown on the lands of Nazir, Nezamuddin and others. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the offences with which they were charged on the 27th and 28th November, did not arise out of the same transaction but that they were separate transactions and that consequently they could not have been tried under the provisions of the Cr. P.C. at that time in force. It is said that the land upon which the offences were committed on the two days was not the same and that the lands were not contiguous and although the accused may have been present on both the occasions, the persons who accompanied them on the 27th and 28th were not the same. It is, therefore, necessary to consider what was done by the petitioners. Under the decree of a Civil Court certain lands had been given to the complainant. These lands consisted of various plots some of which were separated from others by lands of other persons. On the 27th the petitioners went on these lands and cut and took away paddy from some of the plots. On the 28th the petitioners went on the other plots and cut and took away other paddy. It seems to us under these circumstances that it was possible to arrive at the conclusion at which the Courts below have arrived. The events of the 27th and 28th really formed one transaction for in each case the object of the petitioners was to assert their rights or alleged rights over the lands which had been awarded by the decree of the Civil Court to the complainant. Under these circumstances we think that the accused were rightly tried together and they were rightly tried in respect of both the offences on the 27th and 28th of November and we think that what occurred on those days was one and the same transaction. As was pointed out in Kushai Malick v. Emperor : AIR1924Cal389 , it is not necessary for the purposes of Sections 235 and 239 that the acts should have been committed all on the 'same occasion, but it is sufficient that, though separated by a distinct interval of time they are closely connected by continuity of purpose or progressive acts towards a single object. In this view of the expression ' same transaction' we think that what happened on the 27th and 28th November may be taken to be the same transaction. We were pressed on behalf of the petitioners with the case of Budhai Sheik v. Emperor (1906) 33 Cal. 292. It is true that a perusal of that case shows that the facts somewhat closely resemble the circumstances of the case before us. There the land belonging to the same complainant had been looted by the same accused on the 22nd February, and again on the 23rd and the learned Judges there held that the events of these days did not appear to form parts of the same transaction. But the report is somewhat scanty and it is rather difficult to ascertain from the report what the actual facts are. After all, whether the transaction is the same or not as a question of fact depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

2. For the reasons already stated we think that the trial was not vitiated on the ground alleged in the petition and we accordingly discharge the Rule.


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