9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1550 - HC - Indian LawsOffence of cheating - Applicability of Section 220 of the Cr.P.C. - case of inducement allurement and cheating of a large number of investors/ depositors in a criminal conspiracy - acceptance of deposits made by individual investors - multiple such investors - same transaction or not - conspiracy or design may be the same or whether the act of cheating by acceptance of deposits made by different investors would constitute separate transactions because each act of inducement allurement and consequential cheating would be unique - whether such transactions could be amalgamated and clubbed together into a single FIR by showing one investor as the complainant and the others as the witnesses? HELD THAT - In a case of inducement allurement and cheating of large number of investors/ depositors in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy each deposit by an investor constitutes a separate and individual transaction. All such transactions cannot be amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing one investor as the complainant and others as witnesses. In respect of each such transaction it is imperative for the State to register a separate FIR if the complainant discloses commission of a cognizable offence. If in case the Hon ble Court concludes that each deposit has to be treated as separate transaction then how many such transactions can be amalgamated into one charge- sheet? - HELD THAT - Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (similar to Section 219 of the Cr.P.C.) and lays down that 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. Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the IPC or of any special or local laws - From Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. it is evident that upon disclosure of information in relation to commission of a cognizable offence the police is bound to register the FIR. The registration of FIR sets into motion the process of investigation. The same culminates into the filing of the final report by the police officer before the Magistrate. Thus in respect of every FIR there would be a separate final report and there could be further report(s) in terms of Section 173(8). The Investigating Agency/ Police is not authorized either to charge or to try the accused and the same is a judicial function. Thus the Investigating Agency/ Police cannot amalgamate the separate offences investigated under separate FIRs into one charge sheet - thus in respect of each FIR a separate final report (and wherever necessary supplementary/ further charge sheet(s)) have to be filed and there is no question of amalgamation of the final reports that may be filed in respect of different FIRs. The amalgamation strictly in terms of Section 219 Cr.P.C. would be considered by the Court/ Magistrate at the stage of framing of charge since Section 219(1) mandates that where the requirements set out in the said Section are met the accused may be charged with and tried at one trial for any number of them not exceeding three . Whether under the given circumstances the concept of maximum punishment of seven years for a single offence can be pressed into service by the accused by clubbing and amalgamating all the transactions into one FIR with maximum punishment of seven years? - HELD THAT - It would be for the Trial Court to consider the sentence to which the convict may be subjected as per law keeping in view the well settled principles of sentencing. In this regard we may only refer to Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. which inter alia provides that when a person is convicted at one trial of two or more offences the Court may subject to the provisions of Section 71 IPC sentence him for such offences to the several punishments prescribed therefor which such Court is competent to inflict. It further provides that such punishments which consist of imprisonment would commence one after the expiration of the other unless the Court directs that such punishments shall run concurrently. The limitation on the quantum of sentence is prescribed by sub Section 2 of Section 31 of the Cr.P.C. but the same would apply in respect of convictions at one trial of two or more offences. However where the trials are multiple which result into multiple convictions the proviso to Section 31(2) would have no application. Criminal reference disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether each deposit by an investor in a case of inducement, allurement, and cheating constitutes a separate transaction or can be amalgamated into a single FIR. 2. How many transactions can be amalgamated into one charge-sheet if each deposit is treated as a separate transaction. 3. Whether the concept of maximum punishment of seven years for a single offence can be applied by clubbing all transactions into one FIR. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Separate Transactions vs. Single FIR: The court examined whether each deposit by an investor, in a case of inducement, allurement, and cheating, constitutes a separate transaction or if all such transactions can be amalgamated into a single FIR. The court referred to the legislative mandate under Section 218 of the Cr.P.C., which states that for every distinct offence, there shall be a separate charge, and each charge shall be tried separately. The court emphasized that the principle of "same transaction" requires continuity of action and a connection between acts. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Narinderjit Singh Sahni, which held that each individual deposit agreement constitutes a separate transaction due to different parties, amounts, and times. Consequently, the court concluded that each deposit by an investor constitutes a separate and individual transaction, and all such transactions cannot be amalgamated into a single FIR. 2. Amalgamation into One Charge-sheet: The court addressed how many transactions can be amalgamated into one charge-sheet if each deposit is treated as a separate transaction. The court referred to Section 219 of the Cr.P.C., which allows for the trial of up to three offences of the same kind committed within a year in one trial. The court clarified that at the stage of registration of FIR and investigation, Section 219 does not apply. Separate FIRs should be registered for each transaction, and separate final reports under Section 173 Cr.P.C. should be filed for each FIR. The amalgamation of cases, strictly in terms of Section 219, would be considered by the court at the stage of framing charges. Thus, the court concluded that in respect of each FIR, a separate final report must be filed, and there is no question of amalgamation of final reports for different FIRs. 3. Maximum Punishment of Seven Years: The court examined whether the concept of maximum punishment of seven years for a single offence can be applied by clubbing all transactions into one FIR. The court referred to Section 31 of the Cr.P.C., which allows for the imposition of several punishments for multiple offences convicted at one trial, with the possibility of consecutive or concurrent sentences. The court noted that the limitation on the quantum of sentence applies only to convictions at one trial for two or more offences. However, where there are multiple trials resulting in multiple convictions, the proviso to Section 31(2) does not apply. Therefore, the court concluded that the concept of maximum punishment of seven years for a single offence cannot be applied by clubbing all transactions into one FIR. Conclusion: The court answered the reference by concluding that each deposit by an investor constitutes a separate transaction, separate final reports must be filed for each FIR, and the concept of maximum punishment of seven years for a single offence cannot be applied by clubbing all transactions into one FIR.
|
