Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 1981, heard on 3rd November, 1984

---S. 234--Misjoinder of charges--Accused charged of four offences at one trial--Offences under S. 409, P.P.C. read with S.5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and S. 468, P.P.C. read with S.5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, held, been quite independent offences, trial, held, was in violation of mandatory provisions of S. 234, Cr. P.C --De nova trial ordered.

Sh. Nisar Qutab for Appellant.

Naseem Iqbal for the State.

Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1984.

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab, Lahore, whereby he on 2-2-1981 convicted Ghulam Hussain appellant under section 468/409, P.P.C. and sentenced him to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.500 in default thereof to six months' R.I. under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and to two years' R.I. under section 468 with direction that the sentences would run concurrently.

2. Since after hearing the learned counsel fore the parties I feel inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant on account of legal infirmity in the trial of the appellant, I need not to discuss the facts of the case. From the charge as framed by the trial Court it is very much obvious that the appellant was charged for four offences at one trial and as such the trial was in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 234, Cr.P.C. which reads as under:--

"When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of 12 months from the first to the last of such offences whether in respect of the same person or not he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, and number of them not exceeding three".

3. Since offence under sections 468 and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as offence under section 409 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are quite independent offences, therefore, it can be safely said that the appellant was tried for more than three offences at one trial. That being the position there is no option but to accept the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and send back the case to the trial Court for de novo trial. It would be open to police to submit separate challans, if so advised.

S. A. Appeal accepted and de novo trial ordered.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.