In that view of the matter, there being nothing on record to show that the three items of defalcation for which the petitioner has been charged were not within the knowledge of the prosecution, as the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also noticed that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor failed to satisfy him as to why these three items were not included in the previous trial, and further, in the absence of any adequate explanation for its non-inclusion in the previous trial in spite of resort to Section 222(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am inclined to hold that it will not be conducive to justice in the circumstances of the case, rather it will be vexatious, to have a piecemeal trial like this. In my opinion it was a fit case in the circumstances as they stand, in which these three items also could well have been included in the previous trial. That being the position. I would hold that the present trial should not continue, and the proceedings against the petitioner are accordingly quashed.
Print Page
Patna High Court
Chittaranjan Saha vs The State on 15 July, 1959
Equivalent citations: AIR 1960 Pat 168, 1960 CriLJ 503
Bench: S Misra, T Nath
