STATE OF BOMBAY versus UMARSAHEB BURANSAHEB INAMDA

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 711 · Decided: 23-01-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.K. DAS

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.O.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
711 
they undoubtedly are given power to provide for 
termination of employment and suspension or dis· 
missal for misconduct, there is nothing inconsistent 
with the spirit of the Schedule or with the object of 
the Act. Therefore, we are not satisfied that the 
authorities below were in error in holding that it 
was competent to them to make the additional 
provision in the Standing Orders as prescribed by 
paragraph 11 (7). 
In the result, the appenl fails and is dismissed. 
No order as to costs. 
Appeal dismisseJl. 
STATE OF BOMBAY 
v. 
UMARSAHEB BURANSAHEB INAMDA 
(S. K. DAS, K. SUBBA RAo and RAGHUBAR 
DAYAL, JJ.) 
Criminal Procedure Code-Offences commitl.ed in purBttance 
of Criminal conspiracy-One trial, if ptrmislible-Defecl in 
framing the charge, if curable-Code ~f Criminal Prowlurt 
1898 (Act V of 1898), ss.222 (2), 235, 537, 
The respondents were charged and tried at the same 
trial with the offences of Criminal conspiracy and breach 
of trust committed in pursuance thereof during a period of 
more than one year. 
The question arising for decision was 
whether, in the framing of the charge, contravention or the 
provisions of sub-s.(2) of s.222 which allowed a combined 
charge with respect to the amount embezzled within a period 
of one year, vitiated the triaJ. 
Held, that the defect in the charge did not lead to any 
prrjudice t> the accused and therefore did not vitiate the trial 
in view of the ·provisions of s. 537 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure. 
When ail the offences committed in pursuance of a 
conspiracy are committed in course of the same transaction 
this can be tried together at one trial in view of s. 235(1) of 
1he Code of CrimiI1al Procedure which provides 1h11t if hi one 
tHI -
f'lw B_.,,C_t 
c. .. 1,1'. 
v. 
B. K. P"""' 
G 4i""'°"""4r J. 
.i•• 
81.,. •1 a.w._, 
.. 
,, • .,,.JW 
..... .-..1--
••Wu l!lll)al J. 
712 Stn'REME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. 
series of ar.!S so connected togethrr a1 to form the same 
transaction, more offences than one 4fC co1nmittcd Uy the 
same person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial 
for evtry such offence. 
Kadiri Kanhahammad '- The Stat• of Madl'tll, A. I. It.. 
1960 S. C. 661, followod. 
CRIMINAL ArPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimi· 
nal Appeal No. 237 of 1959. 
Appeal from the judgment and order datwl 
February 10 and 11 of 1959, of the Bombay Hig':l 
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1023/59 with Cri-
nal Appeals Nos. 1048 and 1049 of 1958. 
H. R. Khanna and P. D. Me1um, for the appel-
lant. 
S. 0. Patwardhan. J.B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur 
and Rauinder Narain, for the respondent No. 1. 
1962. January 23. 'fhe Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
RAOHVBAR 
DAYAL, J.-This appeal, on a 
ccrtifirate grantfd by the High Court of Bombay, 
rai;;;is the question whether the contravention of the 
provisions of eub-s. (2) ofs. 222 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, hereinafter called the Code, 
in the framing of the charge against an aecu.sed, 
vitiates the trial. 
The facts leading to the appeal, in brief', are aa 
follows. 
The respondents were charged and tried 
at tho tiamo trial of the offences under 1. 120B read 
with s. 406, I.P.C., and of an offence under s. 406 
I. P. C., committed in pursuance of the criminal 
conspirncy t.hey had entered into. They were also 
tried, but ·acquitted of other offenciis oharged with. 
They appealed against their conviction of the 
offence under s. 120-B read withs. 406, I.P.C., and 
of the offence under s. 406, I.P.C. The charge under 
B. 406, I.P.C., was with respect to the commission of 
Lreaoh of trust of a sum of Ra. 2,18,369/- between 
the period March 6, 1949, and June 30, 1950. 
It 
was contended before the High Court that the 
charge framed contravened the provisions of sub-
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
713 
s. (2) of s. 222 of the Code which allowed a combined 
charge with respect · to the amount embezzled 
within a period of a year. The High Court agreed 
with this contention and, holding the trial void, 
set aside 
the 
conviction of 
the respondents 
and acquitted them of those offences. 
The High 
Court, however, maintained the order of acquittal 
1s respect of the other offences. 
The State of 
Bombay (now Maharashtra) has filed thi8 appeal 
against the order setting aside the conviction of the 
respondents. 
It is not necessary for us to determine in this 
appeal the general question whether the contraven-
tion of the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s. 222 of thA 
Co

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