Emperor Vs. Mata Prasad

Emperor vs Mata Prasad

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 29, 1908

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/456813

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/456813
Court: Allahabad
Judge: George Knox and ;Aikman, JJ.
Decided On: Apr 29, 1908
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 234, 235 - Charge--Misjoinder of charges--Illegality. -

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

Mata Prasad

Legal References

Reported In: (1908)ILR30All351

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, sections 234, 235 - charge--misjoinder of charges--illegality. - george knox and aikman, jj.1. we think that the first plea taken in the petition of appeal must be sustained. the appellant was charged with three separate acts of criminal misappropriation committed within one year. he was also charged with having committed two separate offences of forgery. all these five offences were tried together at one and the same trial. the joint trial of these five offences cannot be supported by any provision contained in the code of criminal procedure. the series of acts charged do not form the same transaction.2. we therefore set aside the conviction and order new trials on charges framed in accordance with law. the three acts of criminal misappropriation may form the subject of one trial. evidence of forgeries may be given in support of the charges of misappropriation. if it is desired to try the accused for the forgeries that must form the subject of a separate trial.

Full Judgment

George Knox and Aikman, JJ.

1. We think that the first plea taken in the petition of appeal must be sustained. The appellant was charged with three separate acts of criminal misappropriation committed within one year. He was also charged with having committed two separate offences of forgery. All these five offences were tried together at one and the same trial. The joint trial of these five offences cannot be supported by any provision contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The series of acts charged do not form the same transaction.

2. We therefore set aside the conviction and order new trials on charges framed in accordance with law. The three acts of criminal misappropriation may form the subject of one trial. Evidence of forgeries may be given in support of the charges of misappropriation. If it is desired to try the accused for the forgeries that must form the subject of a separate trial.

Same Parties Emperor vs Mata Prasad Same Subject Criminal Same Judge George Knox and ;Aikman, JJ.

Criminal