Filing of charge-sheets is not governed by the provisions in S. 233 Cri. P. C. onwards which relate to charges to be framed by Court in trial.

The petitioner is J.P. Sanghi. The police filed two charge-sheets against him and two others in the Court of the 3rd City Magistrate, Hyderabad. Of them C. C. No. 1023/4/60 related to offences in connection with forgery of some cheques and misappropriation of the amounts concerned under Sections 409, 467 and 471 read with Sec. 109 I. P. C. The other charge-sheet in C. C. No. 1026/4/60 was under Ss. 477 and 420 I. P. C. The learned 3rd City Magistrate, after registering the above two charge-sheets, clubbed them together for joint trial. The two (clubbed) S. Cs. were subsequently transferred to the 2nd City Magistrate who took them on file as P. R. C. No. 3 of 1960 on the ground that the offences complained of may be tried by the Court of Session. Before the enquiry in P. R. C. No. 3 of 1960 was started, the Police Prosecuting Officer (hereafter referred to for convenience as P. P. O.) raised a contention before the learned 2nd City Magistrate that it was not permissible to file a single charge-sheet for all the cases of misappropriation, and that the Court had to issue a direction that seven separate charge sheets should be filed in respect of the seven cheques so that all the offences alleged to have been committed regarding each particular cheque may be tried as one case, without including the offences regarding any other cheque. The learned 2nd City Magistrate accepted the contention of the P. P. O. and directed that the trial in the two cases should be separated and that the prosecution should file seven fresh charge-sheets confining each charge-sheet to all the offences alleged to have been committed in respect of one cheque. The accused filed Criminal Revision Case No. 166 of 1960 against the order of the 2nd City Magistrate in the Court of the Chief City Magistrate-cum-Additional Sessions Judge and District Magistrate, Hyderabad. The latter made an observation and passed the following order :

"I do not understand why the Magistrate should direct the police to file several cases. When the Prosecution is satisfied with one charge-sheet for all the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused, there is no necessity for the Court to have several cases before it for the said offences. It is not the case of the prosecution that by mistake only two charge-sheets were filed and that seven charge-sheets ought to have been filed. But still I cannot interfere in revision and it is only the High Court that can interfere in revision and set aside the order in question. I dismiss the petition with an observation that the accused can take advantage of any illegality or irregularity."

2. It is not difficult to understand why the 2nd City Magistrate passed the order. The police of course filed only two charge-sheets, but the P. P. O. who represented the prosecution, raised the contention already referred to and stated that seven charge-sheets were required - one charge-sheet regarding each cheque covering all the offences in connection with that cheque. The learned P. P. O. seems to have acted in such manner because he was under the impression that there could not be a joint hearing by the Magistrate for the offences relating to the seven cheques and that a joint enquiry into the alleged offences regarding the seven cheques would be illegal. He quoted and relied on the decision in Tirupathi Rayudu v. Venkateswarulu, 1955 Andh WR 697 : (AIR 1956 Andhra 79) wherein Bhimasankaram, J. held as follows :

"It is to be noticed that Section 222 Cr. P. C. is an enabling section which, while recognising that several independent acts of misapproriation constitute distinct offences, permits the framing of a single charge specifying the gross sum. made up of several items. Such a charge is deemed to be a charge of one offence only for the purpose of Section 234 Cr. P. C. But Section 222, Cr. P. C. does not provide that the acts so charged shall be deemed to be one transaction within the meaning of Section 235 Cri. P. C."

Bhimasankaram, J