9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy without obtaining consent under sec. 196A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal against the High Court of Bombay's decision refusing to quash the order of committal passed by the Magistrate. The case involved accusations against the appellant and another individual for a conspiracy related to forging a passport. The appellant was charged under sections 419/109, 468, and 471 of the Penal Code. The main contention in the appeal was regarding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy without obtaining consent under sec. 196A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant law, sec. 196A(2), prohibits the court from taking cognizance of a criminal conspiracy when the object is to commit a non-cognizable offence without obtaining prior consent. The Magistrate's initial cognizance was based on the charge-sheet filed by the police, which did not include the offence of criminal conspiracy under sec. 120B. The Magistrate framed charges including the conspiracy offence later during the committal proceedings. However, it was argued that the Magistrate's cognizance was based on the offences alleged in the charge-sheet and not the conspiracy offence. The judgment highlighted the distinction between taking cognizance of specific offences and the need for consent under sec. 196A(2) for certain types of conspiracies. It referenced previous cases to emphasize that the offence primarily disclosed in the charge-sheet determines the need for consent. In this case, the charge-sheet primarily alleged offences related to abetment of forgery and impersonation, not criminal conspiracy. The court concluded that the Magistrate did not take cognizance of the conspiracy offence initially, and hence, consent under sec. 196A(2) was not required. The judgment dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Magistrate did not take cognizance of the criminal conspiracy offence, and therefore, the proceedings were not vitiated by the lack of consent under sec. 196A(2). The decision upheld the order of committal and the charges framed against the appellant based on the offences disclosed in the charge-sheet. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the Magistrate's jurisdiction in taking cognizance of specific offences based on the charge-sheet filed by the police and emphasizes the requirement of obtaining consent for certain types of conspiracies under sec. 196A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
