The trial of a principal offender and a person accused of abetment in relation to more than one offence is an illegality that vitiates the very trial and is not curable by the provisions of Section 537 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

G.D.Khosla, J.

1. I have before me the following four appeals which have arisen out of cases heard and decided by the East Punjab Special Tribunal originally known as the Third Special Tribunal, Lahore:

1. Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 1949 arising out of cases Nos. 31 and 32 of 1945. In each of these two cases the appellant, Bakhshish Singh Dhaliwal, was tried along with Nasse who is no longer before me because he has absconded and is believed to have gone away to Pakistan. Nasse was charged with the abetment of two distinct offences committed on two separate occasions, while the appellant was charged with the substantive offence or cheating under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three and a half years and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- in each of these cases. The appellant was also awarded a compulsory fine of Rs. 20,000/- in case No. 31 and Rs. 21,825/- in case No. 32. The sentences of imprisonment in the two cases were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 478 of 1949 arising out of cases Nos. 21, 22 and 23 of 1945. In these three cases the appellant was tried along with Henderson. The appellant was "charged with the substantive offence of cheating under Section 420, Indian. Penal Code, while Henderson was charged with its abetment in each case. Henderson is no longer before the Court, because his appeal was heard and dismissed some time ago. The appellant was sentenced in each of these cases to three and a half years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 60,000/-. He was also awarded a compulsory fine of Rs. 3,10,585/- in case No. 21, Rs. 72,900/-in case No. 22 and Rs. 39,750/- in case No. 23. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently in the three cases.

3. Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1949 arising out of cases Nos. 33 and 34 pf 1945. In these cases the appellant was charged with the substantive of-fence of cheating under Section 420, Indian Penal Code while one Karam Singh, who was acquitted, was charged with the offence of abetment. In each case the appellant was convicted and awarded a sentence of three and a half years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. He was also ordered to pay a compulsory fine of Rs. 67,500/- in case No. 33 and Rs. 40,850/- in case No. 34. The sentences of Imprisonment in the two cases were ordered to run concurrently.

4. Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 1949 arising out of cases Nos. 24, 25 and 26 of 1945. In these cases the appellant was tried along with Henderson. He himself was charged with the commission of substantive offences of cheating under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, while Henderson was charged with the abetment of these offences. Both the appellant and Henderson were convicted, but the appeals filed by Henderson have since been disposed of and his case is no longer before me. The appellant was sentenced to three and a half years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 20,000/- in each case. He was also ordered to pay a compulsory fine of Rs. 33,300/- in case No. 24, Rs. 44,800/- in case No. 25 and Rs. 24,700/- in case No. 26. In these cases, too, the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The appellant has, therefore, been awarded a total sentence of fourteen years rigorous imprisonment in addition to the various fines detailed above. These cases arose out of allegedly false claims made by the appellant in respect of works which he said he had done in Burma under the orders of the Army in the spring of 1942 when the Japanese were advancing in Burma and the Indian Army was forced to make a retreat to India.

3. Before dealing with these appeals it is necessary to explain the apparently lamentable delay which has occurred before these matters could be brought to ripeness. The appeals were filed as long ago as 1949, but delays occurred because for some time the complete records and police diaries were not received from the Tribunal. The matter was then held in abeyanc