@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M.N. Moorthy, J.@mdashThis is a petition filed under S. 482, Crl.P.C., to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No. 33 of
1982 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore.
2. The petition arises under the following circumstances: The petitioner was the President of the Marudur Village Co-operative Agricultural Credit
Society from 1970 to 1975. He was the Treasurer of the said Society in 1967 and was its Vice-President in 1968. As there was defalcation in the
funds, a complaint was filed against the petitioner and one R.M. Meyappan, the Secretary, on 5th September, 1976. The case against them was
that they collected certain amounts on 20th August, 1970 from a member and did not bring them into the account of the Society, thus committing
criminal breach of trust and falsification of amounts. This was the subject-matter of C.C. No. 1 of 1982 in the court of the Special Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, under S. 409 and 477A, I.P.C.
3. A second complaint was filed against the petitioner and the Secretary on 4th January, 1978 alleging misappropriation of Society funds and
falsification of accounts for the period commencing from 1968 to 1975. This was registered as Crime No. 1 of 1978.
4. A third complaint was filed on 29th September, 1978 against the petitioner and the Secretary and also against the officers of the Co-operative
Department for the period from 1968 to 1975 which was registered as Crime No. 4 of 1978. It was alleged that all of them committed offences
punishable under S. 120B read with 409 and 477A, I.P.C.
5. A charge-sheet was laid against the accused on the second complaint in Crime No. 1 of 1978. It is this charge-sheet proceeding which is sought
to be quashed by the present petition. It is contended, the petitioner is prejudiced and handicapped as action was taken only on the second
complaint, keeping in abeyance the third complaint, with a view to shape the third complaint on the defence taken by the accused in the second
complaint. It is also alleged that the Police may suppress certain evidence in the present proceedings and produce the same in the third complaint
which is likely to be filed involving public servants as well. In fairness, they should proceed against the third complaint registered as Crime No. 4 of
1978 which is more comprehensive rather than the second complaint registered as Crime No. 1 of 1978. Action taken by the Police piecemeal is
not permissible in law. It is submitted that the case filed against the petitioner and the (sic) in C.C. No. 1 of 1982 on the file of the Special Judicial
First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, ended in acquittal and the charge-sheet is now laid against them in C.C. No. 33 of 1982 for offences under
Ss. 120B read with 409 and 477A, I.P.C. in all for six charges, covering a period of six years from 1968 to 1974. It is alleged clubbing up of
charges covering a period of more than one year in a single trial is illegal. There is a joinder of six charges and in respect of each charge, the
petitioner is alleged to have committed two offences under Ss. 409 and 477A, I.P.C. Each charge covers a period of practically one year.
According to the petitioner, S. 218, Crl.P.C. enjoins that for every distinct offence there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be
tried separately. S. 219, Cr.P.C. provides, offences must be of the same kind and they must have been committed within a space of one year and
more than three offences should not be joined at one trial. The provisions are intended to prevent embarrassment and difficulty to the accused to
defend himself. Hence, the joinder of six charges at one trial is not in accordance with law.
6. It is also contended, a charge for the gross amount misappropriated within a period of twelve months should not be considered to be one
transaction within the moaning of S. 223, Cr. P.C. The accused being tried for six distinct acts of criminal breach of trust and six distinct acts of
falsification of accounts, thus twelve offences in all covering a period of six years, is opposed to S. 218, Cr.P.C. Falsification of accounts is not of
the same kind as the offence of criminal breach of trust. Hence, a charge of six distinct acts of criminal breach of trust and distinct acts of
falsification of accounts covering a period of more than one year is an illegality which vitiates the trial. The proceedings against the petitioner in
C.C. No. 33 of 1982 will have to be quashed.
7. The case against the petitioner and the Secretary of the Society pending in C.C. No. 33 of 1982 is that between November, 1968 and July,
1974 they were parties to a criminal conspiracy to commit offences of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation in respect of a total sum of Rs.
22,131/65 belonging to the Society, through falsification and manipulation of the accounts, an offence punishable under SS. 122B, I.P.C read with
409 and 477A, I.P.C. There are in all six charges against the accused, each charge alleging two offences of Ss. 409 and 477A, I.P.C. covering a
period of one year. The point to be considered is whether joinder of six charges at one trial as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
is not in accordance with law.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor refuted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Where offences are committed in pursuance of a
conspiracy and the alleged offences are stated to have flown out of the conspiracy, the appropriate form of charge would be a specific charge in
respect of each of the offences along with the charge of conspiracy. In support of his stand, he relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Kadiri
Kunhahammad Vs. The State of Madras, . On the strength of the above decision, he argued in any one series of acts so connected as to form the
same transaction more offences than one are committed by some persons, they are to be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence.
Therefore, where the alleged offences have been committed in the course of the same transaction, limitation as contemplated under S. 219(1) , Crl.
P.C. cannot operate.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner had contended relying on the decision in Kasi Viswanathon v. Emperor, ILR 30. Mad 328 that though a
charge for the gross amount misappropriated within a period of twelve months shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence, it does not follow
that the acts so charged should be considered as one transaction.
10. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted, in the above case, there was no charge for conspiracy and that would make all the difference. The
offence of conspiracy and the offences committed in pursuance of it can be jointly tried and they must be deemed to form one and same
transaction. This is the effect of the decision reported in In re Patri Venkata Hanumantha Rao and seven others. ILR 37 Mad 545. The learned
Public Prosecutor also drew my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Bombay Vs. Umarsaheb Buransaheb Inamda,
wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed when all the offences committed in pursuance of a conspiracy are committed in the course
of the same transaction they can be tried together at one trial in view of S. 235(1), Cr.P.C. S. 220(1) of the present Code which provides that, ""if
in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be
charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence.
11. Bearing in mind the principles laid down in the decisions cited before me, I am of the view that the trial pending against the petitioner is not
vitiated by infirmity in the charges.
12. I do not think it is necessary to say anything as regards the third complaint pending against the petitioner in Crime No. 4 of 1978. The
contention of the petitioner that it is likely that the prosecution agency may suppress certain evidence in the present proceedings which is helpful to
the petitioner and may produce it in the pending third case to its (Prosecution''s) advantage, is only to be stated to be rejected.
13. In the result, I am unable to find any reason to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C. No. 33 of 1982 on the file
of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Coimbatore, and the petition will stand dismissed.
