ABDUL HAKIM KHAN, J.

( 1 ) THE accused who was a Tax-Collector in the Municipal Committee, Gwalior, was convicted by the Special Judge, Gwalior, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal code, and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment'. He has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence.

( 2 ) THE prosecution case shortly stated is that the accused was a Tax-Collector in the Municipal Committee, Gwalior. His business was to collect tax and deposit it in the Municipal Treasury. It is said that ho collected a sum of Rs. 4,750-2-0 but did not deposit it in the Municipal Treasury. It is also said that he collected a sum of rs. 3,071-15-0 but did not at once deposit the amount as required by the rules. He kept the money with him for some time and that he deposited it later on.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the accused-appellant has raised many contentions and i consider them below in the order in which they have been raised.

( 4 ) THE first objection raised is that the charge was not properly framed. On turning to the record I find that the charge against the accused was framed as follows: -. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .

( 5 ) ON a perusal of this, it would appear that the accused was not only charged for the offences under Section 409, I. P. C. , but he was also charged under Section 468-D, Section 477-A of the I. P. C. , and under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act as well. The accused has been acquitted of all the other offences, but convicted under Section 409, I. P. C. , only. In the circumstances, I have only to see whether the charge framed for the criminal breach of trust under Section 409, I. P. C. , was properly framed or not

( 6 ) ON referring to Section 222 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, I find that in a charge for criminal breach of trust what is necessary is to specify the gross sum in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and there should also be the mention of dates. Viewed from this point of view, the charge is proper, because it gives a gross sum. in respect of which breach of trust is alleged to be committed in year 1951. These particulars are sufficient and the objection is of no avail.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has urged that there are no details of the charges under Sections 468 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code. But it is unnecessary to consider this point, because the accused has been acquitted of these offences and there is no Government appeal against the acquittal.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the father's name of the accused was wrongly mentioned in the charge. In the first place, this objection does not appear to have been raised in the trial Court. Secondly, it is admitted that the accused was a Tax-Collector in the Municipal Committee, Gwalior. In these circumstances even if there is mistake in the name of his father, it does act affect the merits of the case.

( 9 ) IN ground No. 9 of the Memo of Appeal, it has been said that a charge framed for more than 3 offences in any year was illegal, and that the joinder of charges for criminal breach of trust with the falsification of accounts under Section 477-A and Section 468-D was bad. At this stage I think it unnecessary to consider the question of the misjoinder of charges, because as a matter of fact the accused has been acquitted of offences under Section 477-A and Section 468-D, and the misjoinder does not affect the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred me to Ramsheshan, G. S. v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Nag 178 (A), but I am afraid that the Nagpur case does not help the accused at all, because in the Nag-pur case the accused was convicted by the trial Court of offences under Section 408 and Section 477-A. On revision it was he]d that the offences should not have been joined together and the case was sent back for a separate trial of the two offences. In the instant case, there is conviction under Section 409, I. P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document