Trial for more than one offence :
Section – 220. (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
(2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of section 212 or in sub-section (1) of section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
(3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.
(4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
Illustrations to sub-section (1)
(a) A rescues B, a person in lawful custody, and in so doing causes grievous hurt to C, a constable in whose custody B was. A may be charged with, and convicted of, offences under sections 225 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(b) A commits house-breaking by day with intent to commit adultery, and commits, in the house so entered, adultery with B’s wife. A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, offences under sections 454 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(c) A entices B, the wife of C, away from C, with intent to commit adultery with B, and then commits adultery with her. A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, offences under sections 498 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(d) A has in his possession several seals, knowing them to be counterfeit and intending to use them for the purpose of committing several forgeries punishable under section 466 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, the possession of each seal under section 473 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(e) With intent to cause injury to B, A institutes a criminal proceeding against him, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding, and also falsely accuses B of having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such charge. A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, two offences under section 211 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(f) A, with intent to cause injury to B, falsely accuses him of having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such charge. On the trial, A gives false evidence against B, intending thereby to cause B to be convicted of a capital offence. A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, offences under sections 211 and 194 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(g) A, with six others, commits the offences of rioting, grievous hurt and assaulting a public servant endeavouring in the discharge of his duty as such to suppress the riot. A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, offences under sections 147, 325 and 152 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(h) A threatens B, C and D at the same time with injury to their persons with intent to cause alarm to them. A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, each of the three offences under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
The separate charges referred to in illustrations (a) to (h), respectively, may be tried at the same time.
Illustrations to sub-section (3)
(i) A wrongfully strikes B with a cane. A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, offences under sections 352 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(j) Several stolen sacks of corn are made over to A and B, who knew they are stolen property, for the purpose of concealing them. A and B thereupon voluntarily assist each other to conceal the sacks at the bottom of a grain-pit. A and B may be separately charged with, and convicted of, offences under sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(k) A exposes her child with the knowledge that she is thereby likely to cause its death. The child dies in consequence of such exposure. A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, offences under sections 317 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
(l) A dishonestly uses a forged document as genuine evidence, in order to convict B, a public servant, of an offence under section 167 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, offences under sections 471 (read with section 466) and 196 of that Code.
Illustration to sub-section (4)
(m) A commits robbery on B, and in doing so voluntarily causes hurt to him. A may be separately charged with, and convicted of, offences under sections 323, 392 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
COMMENTS
LAW COMMISSION REPORTS
This section corresponds to section 235 of the old Code. Sub-section (2) is a new one which has been inserted on the basis of the recommendation of the Law Commission. While recommending the insertion of this sub-section, the Law Commission observed :
“Joinder of charges in regard to offence of misappropriation, etc. – The application of section 235, particularly in relation to conspiracies, has been dealt with in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court – Purushottam Das Dalmia v. State of West Bengal AIR 1961 SC 1589 ; R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration [1963] 1 SCR 253 ; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeshwar Rao AIR 1963 SC 1850 and the scope of the section in this respect is now well settled. There is some controversy [See case law discussed in Sriram Verma v. State AIR 1956 All. 466] as to whether the joinder of three charges of criminal breach of trust or misappropriation with three charges of falsification of accounts connected with those offences is permissible, even when all the offences have been committed within the space of twelve months. A charge specifying the gross sum, framed with reference to section 222(2), is no doubt a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 234, but this legal fiction contained in section 222(2) is only for the purposes of section 234 – D.K. Chandra v. StateAIR 1952 Bom. 177 ; Krishna Murthy v. Abdul Subhan AIR 1962 Mys. 128. While the falsification of accounts connected with a single act of misappropriation can be said to form the same transaction and consequently a joint trial of the two offences is permissible under section 235(1), it is not permissible to try together even two offences of misappropriation and two connected falsification of accounts, much less a series of misappropriations charged as one offence under section 222(2) and all the connected falsifications of accounts.
This position creates practical difficulties. Criminal breach of trust (or misappropriation) is often accompanied by falsification of accounts (or analogous offences) committed either to facilitate the breach of trust or to conceal its commission. The exclusion of such connected offences of falsification of accounts from the fiction created by section 222(2) deprives this section of its usefulness in many cases. While misappropriation on several occasions within a year accompanied by falsification of several items in the account books may be fairly described as parts of the same transaction, the several acts of falsifying the accounts cannot be clubbed together in one charge.”