The principle of autrefois convict and the extended principle embodied in Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code are not applicable to distinct offences.

RANGANADHAM CHETTY, J.

( 1 ) WHEN the Criminal case was pending the accused moved the learned Magistrate for an acquittal on the principle of Autrefois convict on the following grounds:

( 2 ) THE accused was an employee of Ramthirtham multipurpose Co-operative Society and is stated to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 31. 00 and odd through falsification and forgery of material accounts. Earlier he had been convicted for a similar offence said to have been committed during the currency of that year.

( 3 ) THE accused pleaded that an equitable principle on the analogy of Section 403, Crl. Procedure Code should be applied and the accused saved from the harassment of a second charge when the Prosecution could have clubbed this charge along With the one which was tried. The argument did not find favour with the Magistrate; licence this revision.

( 4 ) RELIANCE is placed on Sidh Nath v. Emperor, AIR 1929 Cal 457 and Ramchandra Chetty v. State of Andhra 68 Mad LW (An) 526; (AIR 1956 Andh 102 ).

( 5 ) IT is manifestly unjust for an accused to be tried as many times as there are offences. Hence the salutary provision of Section 234 enabling the Court to try three charges at a time. No doubt separate trials for each of the offences may not be illegal but are highly inexpedient. With due respect to the observations in Sidh Nath v. Emperor, (AIR 1929 Calcutta 457), I am unable to hold that the principle of Autrefois convict or the extended principle embodied in Section 403, Criminal Procedure Code can save the accused. For the principle of Autrefois convict to have any bearing, there must be ft conviction in respect of the same offence. It would be a patent violation of the principle and a contravention of the terms of Section 403 if the accused should ask for relief on that principle. It is a distinct offence altogether that is charged. Nevertheless, under Section 561-A, the High Court has power to interfere to secure the ends of Justice. When the principles of justice and equity not specifically embodied in the provisions of the Code call for application, it is this provision that has to give the accused justice. See Chaman Lal v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Lah 304. I consider this is a fit case in which the proceedings against him now pending before the judicial First Class Magistrate. Vizianagaram, should be quashed and the accused acquitted. Ordered accordingly.

( 6 ) CRIMINAL Appeals Nos. 225 to 227 of 1956: In these three appeals, the accused is one Godavarty Bhasyakaracharyulu. He was charged with the offences of forgery and using forged documents.

( 7 ) THE prosecution states -- The accused was for several years a clerk-manager of the Ramathirthalu Multipurpose Co-operative Credit Society. One of his duties was the maintenance of accounts and the handling of the funds of the society by collecting the amounts from various members who repay loans and also the disbursement of the loans sanctioned. The keys of the office as well as the iron safe are generally in the hands of the accused. The affairs of the society are conducted by five panchayatdars with one elected president. The clerk makes a note of the requirements of the members in the minutes book. The panchayatdars scratinise them and sanction the loans. They apply to the Central Co-operative Bank at Vijayanagaram for funds and when the amounts are received. the loans are disbursed to the applicants.

( 8 ) THE accused taking advantage of his position as the clerk in charge of the accounts and cash, made false entries and forged all thumb impressions of the applicants concerned and misappropriated the funds. The alleged borrowers have given evidence in the case to the effect that they have not received the amounts said to have been acknowledged in the books. But the fact remains that they have submitted themselves to awards (decrees) being passed against them for those amounts. They never demurred. No contest was put up before the Arbitrator under the Act and this is an element which th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document