LexBIRICHH BHUIAN AND OTHERS versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 Nuvemb11, 20. 328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] SUPP. BIRICHH BHUIAN AND OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR (S. J. IMAM, K. SuBBA RAo, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Criminal Procedure-Mis-joinder of charge,,-Charge, Meaning of-Code of Criminal Procedure, 18.98 (Act V of 1898), as amended by Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1955 (XXVI of 1955), aa. 537 (b), 233-239, 4 (c). The Sub-Inspector of Police arrested five out of iO to 15 persons gambling by the side of the road and as one of the arrested person adopted a violent attitude, he, took them to the out-post and ordered him to be handcuffed whereupon, he began to abuse the Sub-Inspector. A large number of Bhuians were dancing close to the out-post and on hearing the noise some of them rushed with lathies, assaulted the Sub-Inspector and two constables and looted the out-post. Three charge- sheeh were filed in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer in respect of the said incidents under several sections of the Penal Code and under s. 11 of the Bengal Public Gambling ' Act, who after taking cognizance transferred those cases to the ~ Court of the Magistrate, 1st class, who held a joint trial on a ·· petition filed by the Prosecuting Inspector and by his single judgment convicted and sentenced them under various sections, against which, the appellants preferred an appeal to the Court of the Additional Judicial CommiS5ioner of Ranchi, who held, that the offence under s. 11 of the Bengal Public Gambling Act was not committed in the course of the same transaction as the other offences were committed at the Police Post aod there- fore there was a mis-joinder of charges, but the said defect was curable as no prejudice had been caused to the appellants. The appellants preferred a revision petition to the High Court which was dismissed. In this Court it was urged on behalf of the appellants that the expression 'mis-joinder of charges' in s. 537 (b} of the Code must be confined only to mis-joinder of accusations and therefore a joint trial of offences and persons outstde the scope of ss. 233 to 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, would not be mis-joinder of charges within the mean- ing of said expression. Held, that after the Amendment Act XXVI of 1955 there is no scope for contending that mis-joinder of charges is not 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 329 saved bys. 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if it bas not occasioned a failure of justice. The amendment steered clear of the confliCt of view and expressly included the mis-joinder of ch1u:ges in the error a:nd irregularities which could be cured thereunder. S'llhrahmania A1111ar v. King Emperor, ( 1902) I. L. R. 25 Mad. 61, Abdul Rehman v. The King Emperor, (1927) I.L.R. 5 Rangoon 53, Babu Lat Ohoukhani v. Emperor, (1938) I. L. R. 2 Cal. 295, Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Empreor, I. L. R. 1948 Mad. I, Janardan Reddy v. Stale of Hyderabad, LI951] S. C. R. 344 and Kadiri Kunhahammad v. Stat,e of Madras, A. I. R. 1960 S. C. 661, referred to. A charge is a precies formulation of a specific accussa- tion made against a person of an offence alleged to have been committed by him. Sections 234 to 239 permit the joinder of such charges under specified conditions for the purpose of a single trial. Such a joinder may be of charges in respect of diffe- rent offences committed by a single person or several persons. If the joinder of charges was contrary to the provisions of the Code it would be a mis-joinder of charges. Section 537 prohibits the revisional or the appellate court from setting aside a finding, sentence or order pas.ed by a court of com- petent jurisdiction on the ground of such a mis-joinder unless it has occasioned a failure of justice and the High Court rightly held that there was no failure of justice in this case and the appellants were not prejudiced in any way. CRIMINAL APPELLATE jurusDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 224/60. Appeal from the judgment and order dated October 7, 1960, of the Patna High Court in Crimi- nal Revision No. 979/1958. K. K. Sinha, for the appellants. 8. P. Varma, and R. N. Sachthey, for the res- pondent. 1962. November 20. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1962 Birichh Bhuia11 y, Stall of Bibar 1962 BirUhh Bhuia11 •• Stat1 of Bihu Subia Rao, J. ~ 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP. T · SUBBA RA.o, J.-ThiS appeal by Certificate raises the question of the scope of s. 537 of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.