1961 (3) TMI 144 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of charges by the High Court.
2. Multiplicity and clarity of charges.
3. Validity of conspiracy charges.
4. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge.
5. Compliance with Section 196A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Charges by the High Court:
The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed against the High Court's order quashing charges framed against nine individuals by the Special Judge, Vijayawada. The High Court had directed the Special Judge to frame fresh charges, which led to the State's appeal.

2. Multiplicity and Clarity of Charges:
The High Court observed that Charge No. 1 was involved and obscure, requiring reframing due to its multiplicity. The Supreme Court clarified that while Section 234(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure limits the trial of not more than three offences of the same kind within 12 months, Section 235(1) allows multiple offences committed in the same transaction to be tried together. Therefore, the limitation of Section 234(1) does not apply. The Court agreed that Charge No. 1 should be split up suitably to avoid prejudice against the accused.

3. Validity of Conspiracy Charges:
The High Court, following a previous decision, held that no charge of conspiracy is permissible if the offences have actually been committed. The Supreme Court rejected this view, stating that conspiracy to commit an offence is itself an offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and can be separately charged. The Court emphasized that conspiracy involves more than mere abetment and that offences under Sections 109 and 120B IPC are distinct. The Court cited the case of S. Swaminatham v. State of Madras, supporting the validity of charging conspiracy alongside substantive offences.

4. Jurisdiction of the Special Judge:
The High Court held that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try offences under Section 120B read with Sections 466, 467, and 420 IPC, as he was appointed to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that under Section 7(3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, a Special Judge can try any offences that can be charged at the same trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the Special Judge had jurisdiction to try the accused for these offences.

5. Compliance with Section 196A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The High Court noted that the Special Judge could not inquire into offences under Sections 466 and 467 IPC without compliance with Section 196A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires government sanction for prosecuting non-cognizable offences. The Supreme Court acknowledged this requirement but stated that the case would return to the Special Judge for reframing charges, allowing time for the government to consider sanctioning the prosecution for these offences.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the Special Judge to frame fresh charges and proceed with the trial expeditiously. The retrial was ordered to ensure a fair and comprehensive examination of the charges against the accused.