When offences were committed in the course of one transaction, there will no misjoinder of charges?

Mr. Nuruddin Ahmed referred one more feature of the case and faintly argued that there was a misjoinder of charges since same persons who were not present at the time of the first incident, had been conjointly tried with the appellants. Those who were tried along with the appellants have been acquitted and there has been no prejudice so far as the appellants are concerned. Secondly it cannot be said that there were two isolated incidents. The incident with regard to Girdhar was an off-shoot of the incident with regard to Shyamdutt and being a consequence of the latter incident in which some of the accused were common, it could be legitimately held that the offences had been committed in the course of one transaction. Hence the trial was not vitiated.

Supreme Court of India

Jai Narain Mishra And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 3 November, 1971

Equivalent citations: AIR 1972 SC 1764, 1973 (0) BLJR 241, 1972 CriLJ 469, (1971) 3 SCC 762, 1972 (4) UJ 183 SC

Bench: A Ray, D Palekar

Print Page

When one complaint is maintainable in respect of dishonour of ten cheques?

 In fact, for purposes of the present order, one is constrained to observe that as per the allegations a specific amount was due. Certain post-dated cheques were issued. They were numbering 9/10 (already mentioned above in individual complaint). It was, therefore, one transaction and to state that there has to be a separate complaint with respect to each cheque that was dishonoured, will not be correct. Section 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, therefore, will not be a bar in the peculiar facts of the case. Therefore, this court has no hesitation in repelling the said arguments.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Anita vs Anil K. Mehra And Ors. on 17 November, 1995

Equivalent citations: 1998 94 CompCas 584 P H, (1996) 112 PLR 321

Bench: V Aggarwal

Print Page