Order.- This is a petition filed under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure-Code, by the accused to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 163 of 1970 on the file of the District Magistrate, Quilon. Under that section proceedings can be quashed in proper cases in exercise of the inherent power of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The section can now be read: “561-A. Saving of inherent power of High Court.-Nothing in this Code, shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” It does not confer any fresh power on the Court. It merely safeguards the inherent power of the Court. The inherent power is there already. As has sometimes been said this section is only a reminder to the Court that it is not merely a Court of law but a Court of justice also. There is no invariable rule as to when this inherent power should be exercised. The only limitations for the exercise of the power are the absence of express provisions in the Code to redress the wrong and that, its exercise is necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 2. Now what are the facts here? Accused was working as a Post Master at the Pattathanam Sub-Post Office. Finding that he had committed criminal breach of trust in respect of several items of money amounting in all to Rs.13,000, during the period between 29th June, 1967 and 18th August, 1967, the Superintendent of Post Offices lodged information before the police. After investigation the police laid the charge before Court. Two cases were started against the accused, the first one, C.C. No. 187 of 1968, on the file of the District Magistrate, Quilon, for criminal breach of trust in respect of an item of Rs.101.47 and the second, C.C. No. 188 of 1968 before the same Court for misappropriation of another item of Rs.300. Both the cases ended in conviction and he has undergone the sentences in the two cases also. Both the cases ended in conviction and he has undergone the sentences in the two cases also. When he came out of jail there was another case awaiting him. C.C. No. 163 of 1970 was started. That was in respect of an item of Rs.11,000 which was also included in the amount of Rs.13,000 mentioned in the first information statement given by the Superintendent of Post Offices. Accused moved the District Magistrate for quashing the proceedings but without success. It was thereafter that he filed the present petition. The correctness of the above facts which were mentioned by the accused’s advocate was not challenged by the Public Prosecutor. 3. The ordinary rule is that in section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code, that there should be a separate charge for each distinct offence. Section 234, clause (1) which provides: “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”, is an exception to it. Section 222(2) which reads: “When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable property, it shall be sufficient to specify the gross, sum or, as the case may be, describe the movable property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the dates between which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of section 234. Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year,” modifies section 234(1) in respect of criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of money. For convenience it allows separate offences to be jointed together by mentioning the gross sum which has been misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed and enables the Court to treat it as a charge of one single offence for the purpose of section 234. The only restriction is that the period during which the offences were committed should not exceed one year. The only restriction is that the period during which the offences were committed should not exceed one year. It is only an enabling provision. It does not prohibit the framing of separate charges in respect of the distinct sums misappropriated. In fact the Criminal Procedure Code, does not prescribe anywhere that if an accused has misappropriated several sums within one year they should all be added together and made into one gross sum and tried as one charge. Therefore the prosecution is not prohibited from adopting a policy of pick and choose in such cases and if the prosecution adopts such a policy it cannot be said to be illegal. If there are 10 items of misappropriation during an year it is open to the prosecution to prosecute the accused first for one of those items and if he is convicted in that case after he has undergone the sentence imposed there to prosecute him for the second item and thus go on prosecuting him till all the items are exhausted or till he breathes his last. But if the prosecution does not want to pester him like that there is section 222 which enables it to club all the items together and treat the gross amount so misappropriated in one year as constituting a single offence. Instead of resorting to it if the prosecution adopts the former procedure the effect would be only to harass the accused with several trials. The adoption of such a harassing method is unfair to the accused, contrary to good sense and cruel. The ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is a deterrent but that it is the emphatic denunciation by:he community of the crime. In a case of the present kind one trial and conviction would serve the ends of justice and the prosecution could have resorted to the provisions of section 222 (2) of the Code. 4. In In re, Appadurai1, for Rs.2,738, misappropriated in the course of about seven months a separate charge was laid before Court and for another sum misap- propriated during the same period another charge was laid. Both the cases ended in conviction of the first accused in that case. As regards the conviction and sentence in the first case the same was upheld by the Madras High Court in revision. Both the cases ended in conviction of the first accused in that case. As regards the conviction and sentence in the first case the same was upheld by the Madras High Court in revision. But as regards the conviction and sentence in the second case they were set aside on the ground that the charge in the previous case should be taken to have included all the items misappropriated by the accused during the relevant period of about seven months. 5. In Sidh Nath v. Emperor1, criminal breach of trust related to a gross amount of Rs.3,651-5-3. That constituted several items. In respect of three of them, viz., Rs.257-8-3, Rs.1,855-0-3 and Rs.178-11-3 a charge was first laid against the accused and he was convicted and sentenced there. Thereafter another charge was laid, for three more items, viz., Rs.700, Rs.100 and Rs.100 included the gross sum of Rs.3,651-5-3. The Magistrate again convicted the accused. It was held by the Calcutta High Court that though section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code, may not strictly apply in its terms to that case a second trial in circumstances like that ought not to have been held. It was pointed out that if a person misappropriated different sums of money he has committed so many offences but it was not desirable that he should be tried as many times when he could have been tried for all of them at one trial. 6. In Jagdish Prosad v. Emperor2, another decision of the Calcutta High Court, there were several items of embezzlement. For some of them the accused were first tried, convicted and sentenced. They were again tried for some other items. About the second trial one of the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench observed: “We cannot imagine a more harassing method of proceeding with the prosecution than that adopted in this case. Three items might have been selected as the subject-matter of separate charges. Then it would have been possible upon a verdict of guilty to impose a sentence that would be sufficient. There would then have been no necessity for proceeding with the trial of any more charges. We entirely disapprove of this method of proceeding with an indefinite number of trials and imposing sentences to take effect one after the other.” and the other learned Judge said: “... There would then have been no necessity for proceeding with the trial of any more charges. We entirely disapprove of this method of proceeding with an indefinite number of trials and imposing sentences to take effect one after the other.” and the other learned Judge said: “... I am perfectly satisfied upon an examination of the materials placed before us at the hearing of these rules that the prosecution had no jurisdiction whatsoever for splitting up the charges in the way adopted. As my learned brother has already pointed out, the charge-sheet submitted by the police before the prosecution Was launched and which was presumobly the result of a thorough investigation by the police seems to have made out a case of persistent defalcation by the two petitioners acting in concert. ......................... The policy of splitting up the charges and the trials in the manner which was adopted in this case is, in my judgment, contrary to good sense and unfair to the accused persons.” 7. In In re G. Bhashyakaracharyulu,3the accused who was tried for misappropriation of Rs.31 odd had been convicted earlier for a similar offence committed during the currency of that year. The proceedings in the second trial were quashed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court observing that although separate trials for each of the offences may not be illegal nevertheless they were highly inexpedient and that it was manifestly unjust for an accused to be tried as many times as there were offences. 8. In Chudaman Narayan v. State4, after observing that where a prosecution for criminal breach of trust in respect of a certain sum, during a particular period had ended in conviction, a subsequent trial for the same offence in respect of another sum during the same period was not barred under section 403, it was held by the Bombay High Court that under section 561-A the Court had power to disallow the subsequent prosecution on the ground that it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the case to proceed. 9. In a case of misappropriation of several items during a particular year if the first charge is only for some of those items and the second charge is for some others it cannot be taken that the first charge includes in it all the items including those in the second charge also. 9. In a case of misappropriation of several items during a particular year if the first charge is only for some of those items and the second charge is for some others it cannot be taken that the first charge includes in it all the items including those in the second charge also. The simple reason is that the express mention of some of the items alone, excludes the others. I respectfully disagree with the contrary view expressed in the decision of the Madras High Court cited above. Similarly section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code or the principle underlying it also has also nothing to do with a case of this kind because for it to apply the previous conviction should have been for the same offence. There is no express provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, directing the quashing of proceedings in the second trial in a case of this kind. At the same time it is not tending to the interest of justice to subject the accused to the agony and humiliation of one more criminal trial. I quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 163 of 1970 on the file of the District Magistrate, Quilon, under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and allow this petition. M.C.M. ----- Petition allowed.