N M NARAYANA SETTY Vs. COURT OF THE MUNSIFF KOLAR
LAWS(KAR)-1966-2-9
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on February 04,1966

N.M.NARAYANA SETTY Appellant
VERSUS
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOLAR BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER THE MUNSIFF Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

JAI NARAIN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1969-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
CITY AUTOMOBILES VIJAYAWADA VS. J K INDUSTRIES LIMITED HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2001-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
CITY AUTOMOBILES VIJAYAWADA VS. J K INDUSTRIES LIMITED HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-2001-10-225] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH HUMNABADKAR, DIRECTOR VS. CONTINENTAL DEVICE INDIA LTD [LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-390] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The petitioner before this Court is the first accused in the Court of the First Class Magistrate Kolar, in C.C. No. 1151/63. A complaint was filed by the learned Munsiff of Kolar under Ss. 193, 465 and 467 read with Ss. 34 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and four other accused. The complaint discloses that the petitioner (1st accused in the lower Court) was the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings (Ex Case No. 597/58) for the recovery of Rs. 1,455-7-0 in the Court of the Munsiff Kolar. On 19-12-1958, the petitioner filed an application in the said execution proceedings alleging discharge and produced a forged receipt, Exhibit P-1, in support of the said discharge. Accused 2, 3 and 5 were the attestors to the said receipt. The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the receipt and accused 4 was the scribe. The accused gave evidence in Court in support of the said receipt. The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the receipt, Exhibit P-1, produced in Court was a forged one and after calling upon the accused to show cause why they should not be prosecuted, the learned Munsiff laid a complaint against the petitioner and the other accused, under Ss. 467 and 193 I.P.C. for having committed the offences of forgery and perjury. In the course of the hearing, the accused made an application to the learned Magistrate praying that separate trail should be held against them on the ground that the offences under Ss. 193 and 467 I.P.C. are distinct and separate offences. The learned Magistrate dismissed this application. The petitioner (1st accused) has come up to this Court in revision challenging the correctness of the said order passed by the learned Magistrate.
(2.)Sri Chouta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the offences under Ss. 193 and 467 I.P.C. are distinct and separate offences and cannot be tried in one trial. His argument is that the offences that the accused are alleged to have committed did not arise out of one and the same transaction. He contends that the discharge receipt was produced on 19-12-1958 and the various accused gave evidence in Court on different dates and as such these offences are not committed in the course of the same transaction. Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory and it states that for every distinct offence a separate charge should be framed and every such charge shall be tried separately. According to S. 239 Cr.P.C. a number of persons may be charged and tried together if the offences are committed in the course of the same transaction. In the instant case it is submitted as the offences are not committed in the course of the same transaction, joint trial of the accused is illegal and the order passed by the learned Magistrate should therefore, be set aside.
(3.)The question for consideration is, what is meant by the term 'same transaction'. Though the word 'transaction' has not been defined in the Code. Courts have laid down various tests to find out whether the different acts committed are part of the same transaction or not. The principal test laid down is unity of purpose or design and the continuity of action. The series of acts committed must be connected together in one way for the other.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.