AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is a revision application against the order of Sessions Judge at Surendranagar, upholding the order of the First Class Magistrate at Muli
ordering separate trials of alleged 27 offences of taking bribe.
Mr. C.N. Shah appeared as the Advocate General on behalf of the Saurashtra State while Mr. D.N. Vakil represented opponent 1. Opponent
2, though duly served with notice was absent.
The application has been filed by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the Saurashtra Government. Farmers of 27 villages of the District
were to be given Tagavi grants. (sic)ain representatives of the farmers of these 27 villages came to Wadhwan for the Tagavi money sanctioned by
the Government. The (sic) in charge of the matter refused to pay moneys unless 20 per cent, were given to him and the Mamlatdar by way of
illegal gratification. The 20 per cent, so demanded were paid and the present complaint was filed later after getting the necessary sanction. In the
complaint an allegation was made that money demanded from the representatives of farmers of 27 villages was a single amount representing the 20
per cent, of the total amount to be given. It was held by both the Courts below that as the occurrence related to 27 different villages and it related
to different persons the trial for the bribe taken for 27 villages was not according to law.
It was contended by the accused and the contention was accepted by both the Courts below that the trials for each village should be undertaken
separately, as the transactions related to different villages and were different transactions. The learned Advocate General contended that the view
taken by both the Courts was erroneous and not according to law, inasmuch as the whole affair was a single affair managed as a single transaction,
and therefore, separate trials were not necessary or even legal. The other side contended that the separate trials were necessary as the transactions
were different.
We have very carefully perused the allegations made in the complaint and find that the whole affair was a single transaction of an aggregate
amount of Rs. 970 charged and received by accused 2 for himself and Mamlatdar- accused 1 for Tagavi grants given to farmers of 27 villages.
The negotiations were made on a single occasion and the settlement was arrived at as a single affair. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was a
separate transaction of receiving a bribe for each village. The transaction was a single transaction. There was a single unit of parties and the whole
matter was managed as a single affair, though on behalf of the farmers, of a bribe of 27 villages. Thus, the whole affair took place as a single
transaction in the eye of law and as such it cannot be split up in a different and separate trials for each village. The idea underlying the principle of
law in this connection is to provide a single trial for all occurrences that take place in one transaction. It may be harassing both the parties and
complicating the issues in bringing different unnecessary contradictions in evidence, if separate trials are resorted to. Thus, the order of the learned
Sessions Judge is erroneous and unacceptable. There can be no inconvenience to the accused by a single trial. On the other hand, it would be
illegal to have separate trials, when the whole matter was managed as a single affair. The order of both the Courts below is, therefore, erroneous
and not according to law.
We allow the application, set aside the order of the Court below and direct that the whole matter be tried in a single trial and further that no
separate trials need be undertaken.