RANCHHODLAL versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 27-11-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
' 
A 
B 
·-
- . 
. ' -.•: 
.; ~:,. -•·' ,, 
RANCHHODLAL 
Y. 
. .. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
November 27, 1964 
. [K. SUBBA RAo, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND 
N .. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.] 
" 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, (Act 5 o/ 1898), ss. 222, 233, 234 and 
235-lndian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 o/ 1860), s. 409-Crimina/ Breach · · 
C 
of Trust-Separate -Trial:r--Sentence Awarded-To run consecutively-
. Whether illegal. 
The appellant was convicted in four cases for an offence under 1~ 409 
IJ>.C. He was sentenced to imprisonment and fine in the first t\vo cases. 
The sentences imposed in the .other two cases for the offence under_ s.. 409 
l.P.C. were t<> run consecutively. ··The High Court dismissed the appellant's 
~~ 
.-
-
• 
D 
HELD: (i) There had been no illegality in the Court's trying the 
• 
E 
F 
appellant in four cases. regarding amounts embezzled within· a few months 
and in not ordering the various sentences_ awarded in different Sessiom 
Trials to run concurrently_. (288 CJ 
· 
The ·normal rule is that there should be a charge for each distinct 
offence, as provided in Si 233 of the Code. Section 222 mentions what 
the contents of the charge should be. It is only in certain circumstances 
that the- court is authorised· to lump up the various items with respect to 
which criminal breach of trust was committed and to mention the total 
amount misappropriated v.tithin a year in the charge. 
When so done . 
. the charge is deemed to be the charge of one offence. (286 H-287 BJ 
(ii) Section 234 is an enabling provision and is an exception to •. 233 
of Code of Criminal Procedure. There is nothing illegal in trying each of 
the several offences separately. 
[287 E] 
(iii) Assuming without deciding, that these offences coulc! be said 
to have been committed in the course of the same transactions, the sepa .. 
rate trial for certain specific offences is not illegal. 
Section 23S too is 
mi enabling section. (287 F-0) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal Appeals 
G 
Nos. 218 to 221 of 1964. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders, dated 
May 21, 1964 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) 
at Inaore in Criminal Appeals Nos. 30 and 31 of 1962 Nos. 246 
and 258 cf 1963 respectively. 
· 
f 
H 
Jai Gopal Sethi, R. C. Mukati and R. L. Kohli, for the apjiel-
Jant (in all the appeals). 
I. N. Shroff, for the respondeni (in all the appeals). 
%8' 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1965] 2 s.c.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Raghubar Dayal, J. The appellant, in these four appeals by 
special leave, was convicted in four cases of an offence under s. 409 
I.P.C. and was sentenced to 4 years' rigorous imprisonment and 
fine in the first two cases on January 17, 1962, by the First Addi-
tional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, Shri H. B. Aggarwal. He was also 
B 
convicted in these two cases of offences under s. 467 read with 
s. 471 and s. 477 A l.P.C. The sentences imposed for these offences 
were to run concurrently with the ·sentence of imprisonment for the 
offence under s. 409 l.P.C. The sentences imposed in the two cases 
for the offence under s. 409 I.P.C. were to run consecutively as no 
order had been made by the Sessions Judge for the sentence in .c 
the case in which judgmenf was pronounced later, to run con-
currently with the sentence imposed in the other case. 
In each of the other two cases, the appellant was sentenced to 
3 years' rigorous imprisonment under s. 409 l.P.C. by Shri Dube, 
First Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, on July 20, 1963. The 
Sessions Judge ordered the sentences in these two cases to run I> 
concurrently, but did not order them to run concurrently with the 
sentence awarded in the first case on January 17, 1962. 
The appeals against the conviction of the appellant in the four 
cases were dismissed by the High Court. With respect to the 
sentence in the appeal against the first conviction in Sessions Trial E 
No. 35 of 1961, the High Court said : 
"Coming to the sentences, the .basic offence is 
criminal breach of trust under section 409 IPC and a 
sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment cannot, in 
these circumstances, be considered excessive. If any-
thing, I would call it somewhat lenient." 
The sentence of fine of Rs. J,000 was considered to be 'feeble'. 
In disposing of the. appeal against the conviction in the second 
case, Sessions Trial No. 36 of 1961, the High Court said with 
respect of the sentence : 
"The sentence of imprisonment is also low; b

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.