# Makhan Singh Tarsikka v. The State of Punjab. Pataniali Sastri C. /

- **Citation:** [1952] 1 S.C.R. 371
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1951-07-30
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/makhan-singh-tarsikka-v-the-state-of-punjab-pataniali-sastri-c-20
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

. .,.,
-
-
4
,:~.--
S.C.R,
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
371
has been referred, reports that the detention is justified; the Government should determine what the period
of detention should be and not before. The fixing of
the period of detention in the initial order itself in the
present case
was,
therefore,
contrary to the scheme
of the Act and cannot
be supported.
The learned
Advoc:ite-General, however, urged that in view of the
provU.ion in section 11(2) that if the Advisory Board
repoi:ts that there is no sufficient cause for the detention, the person concerned would be released forthwith,
the direction in the order dated 30th July, 1951, that
the petitioner should be detained till 31st March, 1952,
could be· ignored
as
mere
surplusage.
We cannot
accept that view.
It is obvious that such a direction
would ·tend to prejudice a fair
consideration of the
petitioner's case when it is placed before the Advisol}'
Board~ It cannot be too often emphasised that before
a person is deprived of his personal liberty the procedure established by law must
be strictly followed
and must not be departed from to the disadvantage
of the person affected.
" '
Petition allowed.
Agent for the respondent: P. A. Mehta.
BHAGAT SINGH
v.
THE STATE
GURDEV SINGH-Caveator.
-~SAYYED FAzL Au, MEHR
CHAND
MAHAJAN and
.
CHANDRASEKHARA
1\-IYAR JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code (Tl of 1898), s. 234(1 )-Misioinder of
charges-Firing single shot at ttl!o persons to kill them-Whether one
off-tmce ok two offences.
- The appellant was tried in respect of the following c)larg6:
(i) causing the death of A and thereby committing an offenec
punishable under s. 302, Penal Code, (ii) firing a short at B and
1951
Makhan Singh
Tarsikka
v.
The State of
Punjab.
Pataniali
Sastri C. /.
1951
Dec. 19.
1951
Bhagat Singh
v.
The' State.
•
372
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
C with the intention of causing their death and thereby committing an offence punishable
under s. 307, Penal Code, and (iii)
firing a shot at D with the intention of killing him and thereby
committing an offence punishable under s. 307J Penal Code.
It
\Vas contended on his behalf that
there was a
misjoindcr of
charges as the
second charge was really a charge in respect of
two offences (viz., attempt to 1nurder B and attempt to .mrirder
C) and the accused h<1d therefore been
charged
with, and tried
for, more than three offences in
contravention of s. .234(1.) of
the Criminal Procedure Code: Held, that there was nothing wrong
in the trial as the single act of 11.ring a shot at B and C is
orre offence and not two offences and the trial was not :00.d for
misjoindcr of charges.
['Their f_,ordships however observed .that
they should not be understood as laying down the wide proposi~
tion that in no case .can a single act constitute more than one
offence.]
Promotha Natha Roy v. King Emperor ( 17 C.W.N. 479~, •]ohan
Subarna v. King Emperor (10 C.W.N. 520), Poonit Singh v. Madho
Bhot (l.L.R. 13 Cal. 270) and Sudhandm Kumar Roy v. Emperor
(l.L.R. 60 Cal. 643) approved.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JuRismcno:-<1 :
Criminal
Appeal No. 38 of 1950.
Appeal from the judgment
and order of the High Court of Patiala (Teja Singh
C. J., and Gurnam Singh J.) dated 5th October, 1950,
in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1950, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Sessions
Judge of Sangrur.
Gopal Singh and Kartar Singh, for the appellant.
Narinder Singh, Advocate General for the Patiala
and East Pun jab States Union (lindra Lal, with him)
for the respondent.
/ai Gopal Sethi (R. L. Kolzli, with him)
for the ·
Caveator.
1951. December 19. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
FAZL Au J.-This 1s an appeal against the judgment of the High Court at Patiala upholding the conviction and ·sentence of the appellant.
who was tried
~y the Sessions Judge of
Sangrur for the offence of
1murder ·and sentenced to deatl1.
" .
•
' >
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
373
The prosecution story is a somewhat long and complicated one,
but ignormg
unnecessary
details,
t

## Text

. .,.,
-
-
4
,:~.--
S.C.R,
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
371
has been referred, reports that the detention is justified; the Government should determine what the period
of detention should be and not before. The fixing of
the period of detention in the initial order itself in the
present case
was,
therefore,
contrary to the scheme
of the Act and cannot
be supported.
The learned
Advoc:ite-General, however, urged that in view of the
provU.ion in section 11(2) that if the Advisory Board
repoi:ts that there is no sufficient cause for the detention, the person concerned would be released forthwith,
the direction in the order dated 30th July, 1951, that
the petitioner should be detained till 31st March, 1952,
could be· ignored
as
mere
surplusage.
We cannot
accept that view.
It is obvious that such a direction
would ·tend to prejudice a fair
consideration of the
petitioner's case when it is placed before the Advisol}'
Board~ It cannot be too often emphasised that before
a person is deprived of his personal liberty the procedure established by law must
be strictly followed
and must not be departed from to the disadvantage
of the person affected.
" '
Petition allowed.
Agent for the respondent: P. A. Mehta.
BHAGAT SINGH
v.
THE STATE
GURDEV SINGH-Caveator.
-~SAYYED FAzL Au, MEHR
CHAND
MAHAJAN and
.
CHANDRASEKHARA
1\-IYAR JJ.]
Criminal Procedure Code (Tl of 1898), s. 234(1 )-Misioinder of
charges-Firing single shot at ttl!o persons to kill them-Whether one
off-tmce ok two offences.
- The appellant was tried in respect of the following c)larg6:
(i) causing the death of A and thereby committing an offenec
punishable under s. 302, Penal Code, (ii) firing a short at B and
1951
Makhan Singh
Tarsikka
v.
The State of
Punjab.
Pataniali
Sastri C. /.
1951
Dec. 19.
1951
Bhagat Singh
v.
The' State.
•
372
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
C with the intention of causing their death and thereby committing an offence punishable
under s. 307, Penal Code, and (iii)
firing a shot at D with the intention of killing him and thereby
committing an offence punishable under s. 307J Penal Code.
It
\Vas contended on his behalf that
there was a
misjoindcr of
charges as the
second charge was really a charge in respect of
two offences (viz., attempt to 1nurder B and attempt to .mrirder
C) and the accused h<1d therefore been
charged
with, and tried
for, more than three offences in
contravention of s. .234(1.) of
the Criminal Procedure Code: Held, that there was nothing wrong
in the trial as the single act of 11.ring a shot at B and C is
orre offence and not two offences and the trial was not :00.d for
misjoindcr of charges.
['Their f_,ordships however observed .that
they should not be understood as laying down the wide proposi~
tion that in no case .can a single act constitute more than one
offence.]
Promotha Natha Roy v. King Emperor ( 17 C.W.N. 479~, •]ohan
Subarna v. King Emperor (10 C.W.N. 520), Poonit Singh v. Madho
Bhot (l.L.R. 13 Cal. 270) and Sudhandm Kumar Roy v. Emperor
(l.L.R. 60 Cal. 643) approved.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JuRismcno:-<1 :
Criminal
Appeal No. 38 of 1950.
Appeal from the judgment
and order of the High Court of Patiala (Teja Singh
C. J., and Gurnam Singh J.) dated 5th October, 1950,
in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 1950, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the Sessions
Judge of Sangrur.
Gopal Singh and Kartar Singh, for the appellant.
Narinder Singh, Advocate General for the Patiala
and East Pun jab States Union (lindra Lal, with him)
for the respondent.
/ai Gopal Sethi (R. L. Kolzli, with him)
for the ·
Caveator.
1951. December 19. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
FAZL Au J.-This 1s an appeal against the judgment of the High Court at Patiala upholding the conviction and ·sentence of the appellant.
who was tried
~y the Sessions Judge of
Sangrur for the offence of
1murder ·and sentenced to deatl1.
" .
•
' >
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
373
The prosecution story is a somewhat long and complicated one,
but ignormg
unnecessary
details,
the
material facts may be shortly stated as follows:-
On the 5th October, 1949, there was a quarrel between the appellant and one Darbara Singh, in the
-course of which the appellant attacked the latter with a
phawra (a cutting instrument). About that time, Gurmail Singh, the deceased person, returned to his house,
which was close to the house of Darbara Singh, from
his cotton field, where he had been working, in order
to take tea for his companions who were still working
in his field.
The appellant asked Gurmail Smgh to lend
him a spear to enable him to kill Darbara Singh, but
since the latter refused to do so, there ensued a quarrel
·between him and tl1e aj)pellant, in the course of which
d1ey exchanged
abuses and
grappled with each other,
.and the fight was stopped only by the intervention of
certain persons present at the place.
It appears that
the appellant was greatly affected by this quarrel, and
thereafter he is said to have armed himself with a rifle
and attacked 3
persons in the vicinity of Gurmail
Singh's cotton field.
He fired firstly at Kartar Singh,
son of Sarwan Singh, while the latter was returning to
his house from the field of Gunnail Singh, but he was
not hurt.
Soon after that, while Gurmail Singh was
returning to his field after attending to his buffaloes
-in a garden which was nearby,
the
appellant chased
him and fired at him thereby causing his instantaneous
.death. Lastly, he· is said to have fired at Kartar Singh,
son of Bishan Singh and one Jangir Singh, while they
were raising an alarm, but the bullet missed them.
Upon these allegations, the following three charges
were framed against him:-
"(1) That you ...... fired a shot at Gurmail Singh
deceased with rifle P. I. with the intention of killing
him and caused his death and thereby committed an
·offence punishable under section 302 ..... .
(2) That you...... fired a shot at Kartar Singh and
Jangir Singh with rifle P. I. with the intention of causing death and made an attempt to cause their death
1951
-·-
Bhagat Singh
v.
The State.
Fazl Ali/.
1951
Bhagat Singh
.v.
The State.
Faz/ Ali f.
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952}
.... and · thereby
committed
an
offence
punishable
under section 307 ..... .
(3) That you ... : .. fired a gun-shot at Kartar Singh
s/o Sarwan Singh ...... with the intention of killing him
and made an attempt to cause his death and thereby
committed an offence punishable under section 307 ... "
It appears that the appellant was an Instructor in
the· Home Guards, and the rifle which he is said to
have used had been
given to
him by his
supenor
officer with 20 rounds. of ammunition.
To support their verson of the· occurrence, the prose··
cution examined 3 eye-witnesses whose evidence has
been accepted by both the courts below after careful
scrutiny. · The learned
Sessions
Judge acquitted the
appellant of the second and tl;\ird . charges under section '307 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that there
was no convincing evidence that the appellant intended
to murder Jangir Singh· and the ·other 2 persons.
He
however convicted him of the first
charge under sec·
tion 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced him
to death, which sentence was later confirmed
by
the
High Court.
The learned counsel for the appellant had very little
to argue on the merits of the case, but he seriously
contended that there had be.en a misjoinder of charges.
which coμld not be tried together under the law, and
the illegality so committed had vitiated the whole trial
of the appellant.
It appears that in the
High Court,
the line of argument on this point was
somewhat
different from the line adopted in -rhis court.
What
was stressed in that court seems to have been that thethrec incidents in respect of which tl1e appellant was
charged not having happened in the course of the same
transaction, they could not have been properly made
the subject of one trial, . and for this contention reliance. was placed mainly on section 235 (1)
of
the
Criminal Procedure Code, which provides that "if, in
one series of acts so connected together as to form the·
same transaction, more offences man one are committed·
hy, the', s.a1Iie persoμ;•he· may, be charged with, and tried
at ohe trial for, every such offence." It should be ·noted:
..
·•. '
. )'
>
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
375
that that ·section is only one of the exceptions to the
general rule laid down in section 233 of the Code that
for every distinct offence, there shall be a separate
charge and every such charge shall be tried separately.
In this court, no reference was made to section 235, but
the argument was confined to the question as to whether
the present case falls within another exception of section 233 which is
contained in section 234 (1) which
runs as follows:-
. "When a ·.person is accused of more offences than
one of the same kind committed within the space of
twelve months from the first to the last of such offences,
whether in respect of the same person or not, he may
be charged with~ and tried at one trial for any number
of them not exceeding three."
It was argued before us that even though only 3
charges have been framed against the appellant, he
has in fact been tried for 4 offences and not 3. The 4
bffences are said to be these:-
( l) Committing
the
murder
of
Gurmail
Singh;
(2) Attempting to murder Kartar Singh, son
of
San van Singh;
(3) Attempting to murder Jangir Singh; and
· ( 4) Attempting to murder Kartar Singh, son of
Sarwan Singh ;
The learned counsel contended that the fact that
the appellant has been acquitted · of the last 3 offences
and convicted only of the first offence was immaterial
to the point raised by him, and we have only to see
whether all the offences mentioned above could be properly tried together.
In our opinion, the short reply
to this contention is that the
second charge which
relates to the appellant firing at Kartar Singh and'
Jangir Singh is not a charge with respect to 2 offences
but is a charge with respect to one offence only. The
evidence adduced by the prosecution . shows
that the
appellant fired only · one bullet. The word "offence"
has been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code as
meaning· "any ;ict or 0111issjon :mad_e punishable/ _by any-1
law for the time being in . force" .. There seems 'to be:1
1951
Bhagat Si,,gft.'
.-v.
The St11te.
F 11zl Ali I•
1951
-BIHlgat Singh
v.
The State.
Faz/ Ali/.
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1952]
nothing wrong in law to regard the single act of firing
by the appellant as one offence only. On the other
hand, we think that it would be,tak'ing an extremely
narrow and artificial view to split it into 2 offences.
There are several reported cases in which a similar view
has been taken, and in our opinion they have not been
incorrectly decided. In Queen Empress v. Ragu Rai('),
where a person
stole several bullocks from the same
herdsman at the same time, it was held that only one o'ffence had been committetl. In Promotlza Nath Ray v. King
Emperor('), it was held that misappropriation in regard
to several account books
constituted only one offence.
In Johan Subama v. King Emperor('), it was held that
when. an attempt to cheat a number of men by speaking to them in a bodv had been committed, one joint
charge was valid. In Poonit Sing v. Madho Bhot ('),
it was held that onlv one offence had been committed
by a person who ga~e false i11formation in one statement to the police against 2 persons.
In SudheendraKumar Ray v. Emperor(''), a person who was chased
by 2 constables had fired at them several times, but it
seems to have· been rightly assumed that the firing did
not constitute more than one offence, though the point
was not specifically raised or decided.
In our· opinion,
there is no substance in the point raised, though we
should
not be unckrstood as laying down the wide
proposition that in no case can a single act constitute
more than one offence.
The other points urged on behalf of the appellant
before us were somewhat unsubstantial points relating
to the merits of the case. which it is not usual for this
<:ourt to allow to be raised in appeals by special leave.
In our opinion, this appeal is without merit,
and it
1s accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellant: R. S. Narula.
Agent for the respondent: P. A. Mehta.
Agent for the caveator: Vidya Sagar.
{1 1881A.W.N,154.
~2) 17 C.W,N.479.
(3) 10 C.W.N. 520.
(5) l.L.R. 60 Cal. 643.
(4) I.LR, 13 Cal. 270.
.._