As regards argument that the three charges in three cases of theft which took place at three different places and in the houses of three different persons should not have been joined together under Sect. 234, Criminal Procedure Code, it seems to me that a plain reading of the section is in favour of trying together three offences of the same kind committed within a year whether it be against one and the same individual or against different individuals. The explanation of the expression “offences being of the same kind” is that they should be punishable under the same section of the Indian Penal Code. The view taken in Empress of India v. Murari, is that not only should the offences come under the same section of the Indian Penal Code but the person against whom the offences were committed should be the same individual. With all deference I am unable to follow this ruling. I am strengthened in my view by the latest pronouncement of the Calcutta High Court in Subedar Ahir v. Emperor where the learned Judges held dissenting from the decision in Empress of India v. Murari, that the common trial of a man for offences committed within a year although the offences may have been against different individuals is not obnoxious to Sect. 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
On the merits the charge refers to three distinct offences committed in October and November. The evidence let in, so far as the first offence is concerned, is that of P. Ws. 1 and 2. They speak to the theft on the 29th Margali which would bring it to about the 12th January. Therefore, there is no evidence that the first of these offences was committed in October or November; the conviction for that offence must be set aside. As regards the other two Offences there is evidence which the Magistrate has believed and which I see no reason to disbelieve, that they were committed in October and November, and I sustain the conviction. As a result, the sentence will be reduced by eight months. As regards the solitary confinement, under Sect. 73 of the Indian Penal Code, the utmost that could have been imposed upon the accused is three months; as I have held that one of the changes has not been proved, I think it will be enough if the accused is solitarily confined for two months. In other respects the petition is dismissed.
M. R.Sentence reduced.