P L D 1960 Dacca 528 (PLP)

ISPAHANI, C. J.‑This is an appeal by one Surendranath Saha who was tried by the Sessions Judge, Rajshahi, and a common jury to answer charges under sections 467/471, Pakistan Penal Code, and 420, Pakistan Penal Code. The jury unanimously found the appellant guilty under section 420, P. P. C., and the learned Judge, accepting that verdict, convicted the appellant under section 420, P. P. C., and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default to rigorous imprisonment for another year. The jury unanimously found the appellant not guilty under sec tions 467/471, P. P. C., and the learned Judge acquitted him under those sections.

2. Mr. Birendra Nath Choudhury, who has appeared on behalf of the appellant, has raised two substantial objections against his client's conviction. His first objection is that the prosecution has failed to show that the persons cheated filed a complaint against the appellant and, secondly, the provisions of section 234, Cr. P. C., have not been complied with. In the present case, the complaint was filed by P. W. 1, Md. Abdul Hussain, Executive Officer and Liquidator, Puthia Central Bank. According to the prosecution, the appellant represented himself to be an officer of that Bank and by deceitful means realised various sums of money from the debtors of that Bank. Reliance was placed on the case of Sahibzada Muhammad Hayat Khan v. Ghulam Muhammad ((1954) 6 D L R 177), where it was held that where a complaint under section 420, P. P. C., was preferred by a person not actually cheated, the complainant had no locus standi to make a complaint. That decision followed the case reported in 22 Cr. L. J. 672, where it was observed as follows : " It is absurd, however, to expect a Court to take any notice of cheating except when it is put in by the person actually defrauded". As the complaint in, the present case has not been filed by any of the persons alleged to have been cheated, it must be found that the complainant has no locus standi to make a complaint and the case against the appellant must fail.

3. The other and the last point urged is that the provisions of section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been complied with and, on this ground also, the conviction and the sentence passed cannot be upheld. Subsection (1) of that section provides that 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. The charge framed against the appellant under section 420 discloses that he had dishonestly induced 5 different persons to deliver to him different sums of money falsely representing that he was appointed supervisor of Puthia Central Co‑operative Bank, Ltd. That was during the month of Falgun, 1364 B. S. The charge framed is obviously not in accordance with the provisions of section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which only provides for three offences of the same kind committed within the space of one year to be tried in the same trial.

4. In view of what is stated above, the conviction and the sentence passed on the appellant cannot b;, supported. The appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant under section 420, P. P. C., are set aside. The appellant is on bail. It is ordered that his bail bond be cancelled. SATTAR, J.‑I agree with my lord the Chief Justice. K. B. A. Appeal allowed.