1959 (10) TMI 32 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
2. Joint trial of the accused under Sections 179 and 180 of CrPC
3. Joinder of charges and persons under Sections 233 to 239 of CrPC
4. Sanction under Section 197 of CrPC
5. Applicability of Ordinance No. XXIX of 1943 and its amendment by Ordinance XII of 1945
6. Legality of "compulsory" fines imposed by the Special Tribunal
7. Enhancement of "ordinary" fines imposed by the Special Tribunal

Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):
The appellant argued that the provisions of Section 188 CrPC were not complied with, as the offence of cheating was committed at Kolhapur, a place outside British India at the relevant time. The court found that the misrepresentation by Satwant Singh occurred at Simla, and the false certification by Henderson was at Jhansi, both within British India. The payment to the appellant was made at Lahore, also in British India. The court concluded that the mention of Kolhapur in the charge was an error and that no part of the offence was committed outside British India. Therefore, the provisions of Section 188 CrPC did not apply.

2. Joint Trial of the Accused under Sections 179 and 180 of CrPC:
The appellant contended that he and Henderson could not be tried together as the offences were committed at different places. The court held that the provisions of Sections 179 and 180 CrPC were wide enough to enable cognizance to be taken either by a court where anything was done within its jurisdiction or where the consequences ensued. The appellant could have been tried either at Lahore or at Simla for the offence of cheating. Consequently, Henderson could also have been tried for abetment either at Lahore or at Simla. There was no illegality in trying the appellant and Henderson together at Simla.

3. Joinder of Charges and Persons under Sections 233 to 239 of CrPC:
The appellant argued that Sections 234 and 239 CrPC could not be combined to try him and Henderson together for multiple offences. The court found that Section 239 permitted the joinder of persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment thereof. The court also noted that the provisions of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act allowed for the singular to include the plural. Therefore, persons accused of several offences and persons accused of abetment thereof could be tried together in a single trial. The trial of the appellant and Henderson together did not infringe the provisions of Section 239(b) CrPC.

4. Sanction under Section 197 of CrPC:
The appellant contended that no sanction under Section 197 CrPC had been given for the prosecution of Henderson, vitiating the trial. The court concluded that the offence of abetment of cheating by Henderson could not be regarded as an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. As such, the provisions of Section 197 CrPC were inapplicable.

5. Applicability of Ordinance No. XXIX of 1943 and its Amendment by Ordinance XII of 1945:
The appellant initially submitted that the Ordinance did not apply as Burma was not a Dominion of His Majesty's Government in 1943. This submission was abandoned during the course of the argument, and the court did not consider it further.

6. Legality of "Compulsory" Fines Imposed by the Special Tribunal:
The State of Punjab appealed against the High Court's decision that the "compulsory" fines imposed were illegal. The court held that Section 10 of the Ordinance imposed a minimum fine, which was not greater than the fine that could be imposed under Section 420 IPC, as the extent of fine under Section 420 IPC was unlimited. Therefore, the imposition of "compulsory" fines did not contravene Article 20 of the Constitution.

7. Enhancement of "Ordinary" Fines Imposed by the Special Tribunal:
The State also prayed for the enhancement of the "ordinary" fines. The court found that the total fines imposed, whether described as "ordinary" or "compulsory," were not greater than the amount of money procured by the appellant by means of the offence. The court restored the "compulsory" fines imposed by the Special Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The appeals filed by Satwant Singh were dismissed, and his conviction and sentence were upheld. The appeals by the State of Punjab were allowed, restoring the "compulsory" fines imposed by the Special Tribunal.