The main legal point established is that charges for distinct offences must be framed separately, and the permissibility of trying multiple offences of the same kind within a year, as per the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

1. The Revision Petitioner herein was former Vice-Chancellor of The Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University, Chennai. He is facing trial in C.C.No.15 of 2015 on the file of Special Court for cases under Prevention of Corruption Act at Chennai.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner herein while serving as Vice Chancellor in Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University was invited to attend the NAFSA-2008 Annual Conference in Washington [USA] from 25.05.2008 to 30.05.2008. He booked a Ticket through BTGT Services Agent in the Executive Class of Lufthansa Airlines for his travel to USA on 24.05.2008 and returned to Chennai on 22.06.2008. The University sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,99,673/- towards the Airlines fare for the petitioner for his travel to Washington [USA] in the Executive Class. However, the petitioner has cancelled the Executive class ticket and travelled in the Economy class, but submitted TA bill enclosing the cancelled Executive class Ticket. Thereby cheated the University claiming a excess sum of Rs.2,22,332/-.

3. Similarly, when he has called to attend AMEE 2008 Annual Conference Prague, Czech Republic from 30.08.2008 to 03.09.2008, he booked ticket in Executive Class in Lufthansa Airline for his Travel on 29.08.2008 through BTGT services Agent and a sum of Rs.2,72,386/- was paid for his executive class ticket. However, he booked two economy class fight tickets in his name and name of his son through the same travel agent BTGT service in Lufthansa Airlines and travelled along is son in Economy class. Though he cancelled the executive class ticket and travelled in economy class along with his son, he has submitted the TA bill enclosing the cancelled Executive Class Ticket and has also claimed the balance amount as if he travelled in the Executive class and has unlawfully enriched himself a tune of Rs.2,01,088/-. Thus totally sum of Rs.4,23,420/- had been unlawfully misappropriated by the petitioner by producing forged document as if it was genuine, in order to cheat the University. He being the Vice Chancellor he had been entrusted domain over the fund to University. He by abusing his official position has obtained illegal gain.

4. Based on the material placed by the prosecution, the Trial Court has framed charges under Section 409 IPC(2 counts), 420 IPC(2 Counts), 468 IPC(2 counts), 471 IPC (2 counts) and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. The petitioner herein has filed a petition under Section 216(1) of Cr.P.C before the Trial Court to amend the charges framed against him. The reason stated in his petition to amend the charges is that the alleged occurrence is taken place on 19.07.2007 to 06.05.2008 therefore, there must be one single count.

6. The charges has framed is contrary to the provisions under Section 212 (2) of C.P.C and Section 23 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The period of alleged offence has been clubbed together without mention any specific or exact the date between the offences when framing the charge under Section 13 (1)(c)&(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. For, the offence under Section 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) separate charge should have been framed.

7. The Trial Court after considering the petition to amend the charges has held that two distinct offences has been committed by the petitioner, amounting to embezzlement of money over which he as Vice Chancellor of the University have dominion. Thereby committed Criminal breach of Trust, forgery for the purpose of cheating and had used forged document as genuine. Since, two distinct offences of same kind were committed within a period of one year, two counts for each offence has been properly framed. Therefore, there is no error in framing 2 counts of charge under Section 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC.

8. Whereas, in respect of charge framed under 13(1)(c)&(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the trial Court has accepted the plea of the petitioner and splitted the charges in such way that the offence under Secti