Although the two charges could have been tried together, they did not fall within the scope of Ss. 236 and 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The principle enunciated in S. 403(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code would not therefore apply to these two charges. This being so, S. 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would make it permissible to try this case under the Towns Nuisance Act.
There is also no equitable reason for interfering because the scope of the two prosecutions is entirely different, as is pointed out in Subbiah Kone v. Kandasamy Kone (55 Mad. 788 [LQ/MadHC/1931/258] = 35 L.W. 265).
The petition is therefore dismissed.
In Re Diwan Saheb And Others v.
In Re Diwan Saheb And Others v.
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Criminal Revision No. 620 Of 1937 & Criminal Revision No. 583 Of 1937 | 04-02-1938
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HORWILL
Eq Citations
- AIR 1938 MAD 659
- LQ/MadHC/1938/68
Head Note
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Ss. 236, 237 and 403 — Joinder of charges — Charges under Towns Nuisance Act, 1923 and Indian Penal Code — Held, although the two charges could have been tried together, they did not fall within the scope of Ss. 236 and 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure — The principle enunciated in S. 403(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code would not therefore apply to these two charges — S. 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would make it permissible to try this case under the Towns Nuisance Act — There is also no equitable reason for interfering because the scope of the two prosecutions is entirely different — Towns Nuisance Act, 1923, Ss. 12(1) & (2)
