YARLAGADDA TIRUPATHIRAYADU Vs. YARLAGADDA VENKATESWARULU
LAWS(APH)-1955-7-16
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on July 08,1955

Yarlagadda Tirupathirayadu Appellant
VERSUS
Yarlagadda Venkateswarulu Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GURUCHARAN SAMAL VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
D K CHANDRA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

C.N. Krishna Murthy VS. Abdul Subban and another [LAWS(KAR)-1984-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
J P SANGHI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1961-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
F. AND C. OSLAR (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR. VS. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-1956-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
B S PARTHASARATHY VS. SALES TAX OFFICER, MYSORE CITY CIRCLE [LAWS(KAR)-1956-9-19] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

BHIMASANKARAM, J. - (1.)THIS Criminal Revision case is by the complainant in C. C. No. 71 of 1954 against the order of the Additional First Class Magistrate Bapatla, declining to frame a charge against the accused under Sections 477 -A or 467, I.P.C. together with an offence under Section 408, I.P.C. under which the accused already stands charged. The learned Magistrate was of the view that a charge under Section 477 -A, I.P.C. could not be joined with a charge under Section 408, I.P.C. He, therefore, directed the appellant to file a fresh complaint for an offence punishable under Section 477 -A I.P.C, as the case may be, if so advised.
(2.)BEFORE going into the point of law, it is desirable to state a few facts. The accused was a clerk of the complainant and was in charge of his accounts and cash. The complainant alleged that the accused in that capacity misappropriated off and on some amounts totalling a sum of Rs. 32,705 -9 -8 between 6 -2 -1953 and 18 -1 -1954. In order to enable him to do so, he falsified the accounts. In two instances he also purported to execute in favour of the complainant without any notice to him two promissory notes, one dated 22 -6 -1953 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - and another dated 23 -9 -1953 for a sum of Rs. 9,000/ -. The accused was charged with having misappropriated the aggregate amount mentioned above in the charge as finally revised and the details of the misappropriation have also been specified in the charge. The charge as it now stands, refers only to an offence punishable under Section 408, I.P.C. The complainant filed a petition for altering the charge originally framed and also for framing an additional charge under Section 477 -A or Section 467, I.P.C. While amending the charge as originally framed so as to bring it in conformity with the provisions of Section 222(2) Cr. P.C., the learned Magistrate, as above stated, declined to frame an additional charge under Section 477 -A or Section 467, I.P.C. on the ground that such charges could not be joined together.
Section 222(2), Cr. P.C. runs thus: When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of Section 234. Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year.

(3.)SECTIONS 233 - 239 Cr. P.C. relate to joinder of charges. Section 233 lays down that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately, except in the cases mentioned in Sections 234, 236 and 239. Section 234 enables the joinder of three charges when they relate to offences of the same kind committed within a period of twelve months. Section 235(1) provides: If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence. Sub -Section (2) of the same enacts: If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences. It is not necessary now to refer to Sub -sections 3. and (4) of this section. Section 236 runs thus: If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once, or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences. No reference need now be made to Sections 237 and 238 or even to Section 239 which last section deals with persons who may be charged jointly.
;


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