https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183555 Provisions on joinder of charges and joint trial were treated as enabling exceptions, not mandatory rules, so separate trials for distinct acts of criminal breach of trust were not unlawful and there was no legal basis to require concurrent sentences. Sentencing was held to depend on the gravity of the offences and the circumstances of their commission, rather than on any assumption that punishment must track a different charging format. Because the accused misused public money from a responsible position, a deterrent sentence was considered appropriate and no reduction was made. The convictions and sentences were left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 27 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183555 Provisions on joinder of charges and joint trial were treated as enabling exceptions, not mandatory rules, so separate trials for distinct acts of criminal breach of trust were not unlawful and there was no legal basis to require concurrent sentences. Sentencing was held to depend on the gravity of the offences and the circumstances of their commission, rather than on any assumption that punishment must track a different charging format. Because the accused misused public money from a responsible position, a deterrent sentence was considered appropriate and no reduction was made. The convictions and sentences were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183555