@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Devadoss, J.@mdashThis is an application to revise the order of the Second Class Magistrate of Papanasam, who convicted the petitioner u/s
504, Indian Penal Code, confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Tanjore. The Magistrate inquired into the complaint preferred by the
complainant and framed a charge under Sections 352 and 504. At the time of writing the judgment, he discovered, that the occurrences were
different and that the charges under Sections 504 and 352 could not be tried together and finding the illegality of the charges he struck out the
charge framed, and framed a charge u/s 504 alone, against the accused and asked the accused whether the prosecution witnesses were to be re-
called and examined and whether he had any defence witnesses to examine. The accused stated that he did not want to examine the witnesses and
the Magistrate convicted him u/s 504.
2. It is contended before me that this procedure is irregular. Under the Cr. P.C. a Magistrate is entitled to try an accused for more than one
offence in one trial, if the offences have been committed in the course of the same transaction or three different offences of the same kind
committed during the course of a year. Here the offences were of different kinds committed at different times. The one was an assault and the other
one was an abuse. Therefore the Magistrate was wrong in trying the two charges in one trial. When he discovered the irregularity of it, instead of
starting a fresh enquiry in respect of the two offences, that is, separate enquiries, one in respect of Section 504 and another in respect of Section
352 he struck out the charge framed already and framed a charge u/s 504. This procedure is not sanctioned by Section 227, Cr. P.C.; and what
could be done u/s 227 is only to alter or modify the charge at any time before judgment. But it does not permit the Court to try two distinct
offences which are in no way connected with one another, in the same trial. That the procedure adopted by the Sub-Magistrate is illegal is clear
from the judgment of the late Chief Justice in Manavala Chetty v. Emperor 29 M. 569 : 1 M.L.T. 409 : 5 Cr. L.J. 94.
3. The conviction is, therefore, set aside and considering the length of time that has elapsed since the occurrence I do not think I should order a re-
trial. The fine imposed on the petitioner will be refunded to him.
