The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for separate charges for distinct offences and the irregularity in the framing and joinder of charges.

JUDGMENT

Das, J. - This appeal has been preferred by one Becharam Mukherjee who has been convicted by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta on 17th December 1942, u/s 380, Penal Code, and on three counts and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months, the fine if realised being directed to be paid over as compensation to one Sailaja, who is respondent 2 in this appeal. The prosecution which resulted in the aforesaid conviction and sentence against which the present appeal is directed was initiated by a petition of complaint (Ex. 4) filed by one Manikbala as complainant before the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 27th February 1942, charging the appellant under Sections. 403, 406 and 420, Penal Code. On that date the Chief Presidency Magistrate after examining the complainant referred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Detective Department, with a direction to take cognisance if any case is made out.

2. Sub-Inspector Provakar Mukherjee (p.w. 11) was deputed to take up the investigation. He commenced the investigation on 6th March 1942. The appellant was arrested on 19th March 1942, in the room of one Shefali a woman of the town living at No. 7, Gouri Sankar Lane. After investigation the SubInspector on 20th May 1942, submitted two challans in each of which the appellant was Charged u/s 406, Penal Code, and alternatively u/s 420, Penal Code. The Chief Presidency Magistrate sent the case to the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate for disposal. The two challans were amalgamated by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate. The trial opened on 29th June 1942. Between 29th June 1942, and 3rd August 1942, 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution before the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, the cross-examination of each of these witnesses being reserved. Charges were framed on 4th August 1942, in three sets, each set containing a charge u/s 380, Penal Code, with an alternative charge u/s 403, Penal Code. It will be necessary to refer to and examine the charges in greater detail hereafter. The appellant having pleaded not guilty the trial continued. The 11 prosecution witnesses were re-called and cross-examined. Four new prosecution witnesses were also examined and cross-examined. The prosecution closed its case on 3rd October 1942. The appellant was examined u/s 342, Criminal P.C. and stated that he would file a written statement. The defence called five witnesses and closed their case on 12th November 1942. Arguments were heard on 24th, 26th and 30th November 1942. On the last mentioned date the appellants' written statement was filed. Judgment was delivered on 7th December 1942 resulting in the conviction and the sentence which I have already mentioned.

3. The prosecution case may briefly be summarised as follows: One Sm. Sailaja Dassi, a woman of the town of the age of about 35 years, was in the sole keeping of one Balai Chandra Roy for 6 or 7 years. Manikbala is her foster daughter. Sailaja with Manikbala formerly used to live in a house as tenant of of one Kalo Bina. This Kalo Bina was also a woman of the town and latterly came to be the mistress of the appellant. It was in that house that Sailaja and Manikbala became known to the appellant. He used to address Sailaja as "Didi." Manikbala used to call Kalo Bina "Mashi" and the appellant as "Mesho Babu." Sailaja prospered as a prostitute and made a fortune by her trade. She had a considerable amount of cash and jewellery and ornaments. Pour or five years ago; she purchased premises No. 4, Imam Bux Lane for Rs. 10,300. After the purchase of this house she removed there with her daughter. Appellant used to come and see them at this new house and became intimately associated with them and Sailaja and Manikbala came to place great confidence and reliance on the appellant. The appellant knew about Sailaja's ornaments and cash. In the month of