Legal Provisions of Section 219 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
Three offences of same kind within one year may be charged together:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The section provides one of the three exceptions to Section 218. The section bars a single trial of more than three offences of the same kind committed within a span of one year. The section merely authorises a combination or three offences of the same kind in a single trial. It does not bar separate trial of the accused for each offence.
The intention of the legislature is not to make the three offences, which are tried together under this provision, to be treated as one offence. Thus the offences continue to be separate though there is single trial for all of them.
It may be noted that this section refers to the case of a single accused, and, therefore, not applicable where several persons are tried jointly.
Image Source : vistacriminallaw.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The expression ‘offences of the same kind’ has been explained in sub-section (2) which says that offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code or any special or local law. To illustrate, embezzlement and abatement thereof are not offences of the same kind for the purpose of this section.
Again a single trial of the accused person on three charges of breach of trust and three charges of falsification of accounts in connection therewith were held to be illegal as the two offences so combined were not of the same kind.
An accused person may be charged at one trial with three offences of the same kind though committed against different persons. Thus where a postmaster dishonestly misappropriated moneys paid to him by different persons on three different occasions, he could be charged with, and tried at one trial for all the three offences. The Supreme Court has ruled that a single act of firing a shot at two different persons is one offence and not two offences to attract the provisions of Section 219 of the Code.
The proviso to Section 219 makes it clear that an attempt to commit an offence, where such attempt is punishable by any law, is of the same kind as the actual offence. Thus the offence under Section 307, IPC is of the same kind as the offence under Section 302, IPC.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The object of inserting proviso to this section is to avoid the necessity of the same witnesses giving the same evidence two or three times in different trials, and to join in one trial, the offences with regard to which the evidence would be overlapping.
Where an accused is charged of more than three offences committed during a year in violation of the provisions of Section 219, this irregularity will not render the trial null and void. Thus in a case where the accused was charged and tried for four dacoities committed within a period of twelve months and he raised no objection to it at the trial stage or even at the appellate stage, subsequent objection could not be sustained as no prejudice was caused to the accused by that trial.
In Ranbir Kumar v. State of Punjab, three challans concerning offences in respect of different charges were filed. In first and second challan, allegations of dishonest misappropriation were on three counts but in the third challan it was on two counts. Detailed particulars with definite dates, places and amount had been furnished.
The Court held that limitations for lumping three offences of the same kind within one year would be attracted in such a case because lumping together charges at the stage of defence would result into some prejudice to the accused.
Moreover, by presenting three separate challans more elaborate opportunity was afforded to the accused. Under these circumstances, order rejecting prayer for clubbing of charge was proper did not warrant any interference by the High Court.
The Allahabad High Court in Shri Ram Verma v. State, has expressed a view that each of the four exceptions mentioned in Sections 219, 220, 221 and 223 are to be individually relied upon as justifying a joinder of charges in respect of any trial and it is not open to the prosecution to take the help partly of one section and partly of another in order to justify the joinder of charges. Thus each section is to be an exception individually and they cannot be joined together to constitute an exception.
It has been held that the following are not the offences of the same kind for the application of Section 219 of the Code—
(1) Forgery and giving false evidence (perjury)
(ii) Adultery and bigamy
(iii) Falsification of account and criminal breach of trust
(iv) Murder and grievous hurt.