9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Sanction under Section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Legality of the Charge Framing. 3. Conviction under Section 420 IPC (Cheating). 4. Conviction under Section 120B IPC (Conspiracy). 5. Sentencing of the Appellants. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Sanction under Section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure: The appellants contended that the proceedings were void ab initio due to the absence of a proper sanction under Section 196A CrPC. They argued that the document on record, Ex. P 1560, did not constitute a valid sanction as it was not a written order signed by the sanctioning authority and did not show that the facts were considered by the Governor. The Court held that this point required investigation of facts and was not a pure question of law. Since Ex. P 1560, an official communication from the Home Department, stated that the Governor had granted the sanction, a presumption arose that the sanction was validly accorded. Therefore, the Court overruled the contention regarding the invalidity of the sanction. 2. Legality of the Charge Framing: The appellants argued that the charge jumbled up several offences, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the charge was clear and related to conspiracy, with references to other sections of the IPC to indicate the objects of the conspiracy. The charge was understood by the appellants, and there was no confusion or bewilderment. Hence, the Court overruled this objection. 3. Conviction under Section 420 IPC (Cheating): The Court examined whether Lachhimi Narain and other appellants were guilty of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The Court noted that for a conviction under Section 420 IPC, it must be established that the person cheated someone and dishonestly induced them to deliver property. The Court found that the banks and firms were not deprived of interest and that the appellants obtained credits by unlawful means, making the gain unlawful. The Court distinguished the case from others cited by the defense and held that the offence of cheating was established. The Court confirmed the conviction of Tulsi Ram and Beni Gopal for cheating but set aside the conviction of Babu Lal under Section 420 IPC due to insufficient evidence. 4. Conviction under Section 120B IPC (Conspiracy): The Court examined whether the appellants were guilty of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC. The Court found sufficient evidence to establish the complicity of Tulsi Ram, Beni Gopal, and Babu Lal in the conspiracy. The Court upheld their conviction under Section 120B IPC. However, the Court found that the evidence against Chandrika Singh was insufficient to establish his involvement in the conspiracy and set aside his conviction under Section 120B IPC. 5. Sentencing of the Appellants: The Court considered the age and circumstances of the appellants while deciding on the sentences. The Court reduced Lachhimi Narain's sentence to three years of imprisonment and increased the fine to Rs. 10,000, considering his age and the fact that no actual loss resulted from the fraud. For the remaining appellants, the Court reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone and imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000 each, considering their youth at the time of the offence and their influence under Lachhimi Narain. The appeals were partly allowed, modifying the sentences accordingly.
|
