[FULL , BENCH.]

Present : Bertram C.J. and Ennis and De Sampayo JJ.

THE KING v. AMAN

219-D. C. (Crim.) Badulla 4,768.

Joinder of charges-Running amuck-Stabbing two persons-Criminal Procedure Code, s. 180.

The accused, who was drunk, bad an altercation with A, and stabbed him. Then he rushed along a crowded street, and about 30 yards off, seeing E, with whom he had an altercation the previous day, reminded him of the occurrence, and stabbed him also.

Held, that in the circumstances of this case the two acts were so connected together as to form the same transaction under section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and he could be properly tried on one indictment.

BERTRAM C.J.-" The word ' transaction ' is sufficiently general to cover the case of a man who is reduced to a state of temporary frenzy by drunkenness or drugs, and in pursuance of the condition so generated runs along a street and commits a series of offences, sometimes inspired by one motive and sometimes by another, against persons with whom he comes face to face. "

THE facts appear from the judgment.

A. St. V. Jayawardene, for the appellant.

Garvin, S.-G. (with him Jansz, C.C), for the Crown.

February 2, 1920. BERTRAM C.J.-

In this case the accused was prosecuted on an indictment including two counts, one for causing hurt to Sena Abdul Cader, and the other for voluntarily causing hurt to Cader Meera Saibo. The two offences were committed owing to the fact that the accused had got into a condition of violent drunkenness. .He had words with the man who is the subject of the second count, pulled out a knife and stabbed him. He then rushed on along the street, in which were several boutiques, and about thirty yards from the place where he committed the first offence he saw Sena Abdul Cader. He had had an altercation with him the previous day about some " rice. The accused reminded him of the occurrence, and stabbed him also. The two offences were committed in the same street, and the man who was struck on the occasion of the second offence could see from where he was standing the disturbance going on in which the first

offence was committed. The accused has been convicted, and Mr. Jayawardene, arguing on his behalf on the appeal, has raised two objections to the indictment.

The first is that charges of grievous hurt and simple hurt cannot be combined on an indictment under section 179 of the Criminal Procedure Code as offences of the same kind, inasmuch as they are not offences punishable by the same amount of punishment under the same section. He maintained that, on the authority of the Privy Council case which he ..cited, any misjoinder of this nature was necessarily fatal to the indictment as being an illegality and not an irregularity.

The second objection was that these two offences could not be considered as a series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction under section 180 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not necessary for us to consider the first objection. The principle involved must remain for determination at some future occasion. It is sufficient to say that in this case we are of opinion that the acts were so connected together as to form the same transaction under section 180. That being so, the indictment is justified by the terms of that section.

Mr. Jayawardene relied on a series of Indian cases. But, in my opinion, these cases, if closely examined, do not support his argument.

The first case was of Queen Empress v. Pakira'pa and others.1 What that case, in my opinion, laid down was this, that in determining whether a. series of acts ought to be considered part of the same transaction, it is proper for the Court to take into account the effect of such a course upon the fairness of the trial, and that it would be straining the construction of the section to apply it to events separated by distinct, that is to say, substantial intervals of time