RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) SRI Ram Varma was committed for trial to the Court of Session, Etah for offences under sections 409 and 477a, Penal Code. The charge under Section 409 Penal Code was that he being a public servant in the employment of the Director of Medical and Health Services, U. P. at Etah and being entrusted with and having dominion over property in such capacity committed criminal breach of trust with respect of the said property to the extent of. Rs. 569-10-3 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 409, Penal Code.

( 2 ) THE charge under Section 477a was that he in the year 1947 at Etah wilfully and with intent to defraud, altered multilated falsified account which had been kept and maintained by him on behalf of his employer and made false entries in and committed to make entries and made alterations in material particulars in such books of accounts in the year 1947 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 477a, Penal Code.

( 3 ) THE sum of Rs. 569-10-3 was made up of the amounts relating to four different items. The additional district Government counsel applied to the Assistant Sessions Judge to whose Court the case had been transferred that trial for an offence under Section 477a with respect to four items was not permissible and that therefore the case be split up into two cases one relating to three items of criminal breach of trust and 3 offences under Section 477a Penal Code with respect to those three items and that the offence with respect to the fourth item of Rs. 10-10-3 be made the subject matter of a different case. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge acceded to the request and ordered the case to be split up into two cases. The accused was dissatisfied with the order and went up in revision to the learned sessions Judge who took a different view from that of the Assistant Sessions Judge and made this reference recommending that the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge for splitting up the sessions trial into two separate cases be set aside and the trial be ordered to proceed on the charges framed by the learned Committing Magistrate.

( 4 ) THE accused was committed to the Sessions Court in two other cases also. There also the charges were in similar terms and the charge about criminal breach of trust including more than three items. Each of those cases has also been ordered to be split up into two cases on similar lines and the learned Sessions Judge has referred those cases also with the similar recommendation. Those references are Nos. 246 and 248 of 1954.

( 5 ) AT the hearing of these references both the learned counsel for the accused and the learned assistant Government Advocate submitted that the reference be accepted and that the trial on the charges as framed by the Magistrate was quite legal.

( 6 ) AGREEMENT of the parties or any concession by the accused cannot give jurisdiction to a Court to try a certain matter and does not ordinarily bar the accused to contend the legality of the trial in case the decision goes against him but this would be the position when the Court exercises the jurisdiction on the basis of such agreement or concession, jurisdiction which it did not otherwise possess. This is not the position in the present case. The Assistant Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to try the case for various offences. The only question is how he should proceed and conduct the trial. If an accused agrees to a certain mode of trial and contends that that mode of trial is more desirable than the other ordered by the Court and that the other mode of trial will be harmful to him it would not be open to him to say later that the mode of trial he had agreed to did result in prejudicing him in haying a fair trial. Whatever may have been the legal position about the validity of a trial in which an accused had been tried for charges which could not have been joined at one trial in view of the provisions of sections 233, 234, and 236, Criminal P. C. , till 31-12-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document