SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(AP) 200

SANJEEVA ROW NAIDU
In Re: Osaman Ali – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


RAO NAYUDU, J.

( 1 ) THE simple point that arises for consideration in these Revision Petitions is whether the prosecution in respect of two charges of criminal misappropriation should not be allowed to proceed with and should be quashed in view of the fact that two other charges of criminal misappropriation against the same accused have ended in acquittal.

( 2 ) THE main ground that is urged on behalf of the petitioner is, that Section 222 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, permitted the inclusion of a gross sum in respect of which the offence of criminal misappropriation is alleged to have been committed within a period of one year, without having to specify the particular items and the exact dates, and the charge so framed shall he deemed to be a charge for an offence within the meaning of Section 234, Criminal P. C. From this it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that as the prosecution could have preferred one charge in respect of the gross amount made up of several sums misappropriated by the accused, including the sums which were the subject-matter of the two charges that are now being proceeded with, it would he illegal for the prosecution to try th










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top