2017 (5) TMI 490 - SC - Indian Laws

Defalcation of public funds, fraudulent transactions and fabrication of accounts in Animal Husbandry Department of State of Bihar popularly known as fodder scam - whether in view of Article 20(2) of Constitution of India and section 300 Cr.PC, it is a case of prosecution and punishment for the same offence more than once ? - Held that - Section 218 deals with separate charges for distinct offences. Section 219 quoted above, provides that three offences of the same kind can be clubbed in one trial committed within one year. Section 220 speaks of trial for more than one offence if it is the same transaction. In the instant case it cannot be said that defalcation is same transaction as the transactions are in different treasuries for different years, different amounts, different allotment letters, supply orders and suppliers. Thus the provision of section 221 is not attracted in the instant case. There are different sets of accused persons in different cases with respect to defalcation. There may be a conspiracy in general one and a separate one. There may be larger conspiracy and smaller conspiracy which may develop in successive stages involving different accused persons. In the instant case defalcations have been made in various years by combination of different accused persons. Thus, there can be separate trials on the basis of law laid down by this Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979 (1) TMI 241 - SUPREME COURT). In the instant case, offences are not the same offence. There can be different trials for the same offence if tried under two different enactments altogether and comprised of two different offences under different Acts/statutes without violation of the provisions of Article 20(2) or Section 300 Cr.PC. Each defalcation would constitute an independent offence Each defalcation would constitute an independent offence. There was conspiracy hatched which was continuing one and has resulted into various offences. It was joined from time to time by different accused persons, so whenever an offence is committed in continuation of the conspiracy, it would be punishable separately for different periods as envisaged in section 212(2), obviously, there have to be separate trials. Thus it cannot be said to be a case of double jeopardy at all. It cannot be said that for the same offence the accused persons are being tried again.

Issues Involved:
1. Double Jeopardy and Section 300 Cr.PC
2. Jurisdiction and Place of Trial
3. Adoption of Evidence in Multiple Cases
4. Separate Trials for Different Offences
5. Conspiracy and Separate Offences
6. Delay in Filing Appeals

Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Double Jeopardy and Section 300 Cr.PC:
The core issue revolves around whether prosecuting the accused for different offences arising from the same conspiracy constitutes double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 Cr.PC. The Court held that although there was a general conspiracy from 1988 to 1996, the offences were distinct for different periods, involving different amounts, fake vouchers, and different sets of accused persons. The Court clarified that each defalcation constitutes an independent offence, and separate trials are necessary to avoid prejudice to the accused. The Court stated, "The conviction for such offence does not bar for subsequent trial and conviction for another offence and it does not matter even if some ingredients of these two offences are common."

2. Jurisdiction and Place of Trial:
The jurisdiction to try the offences was determined based on the place where the offences were committed, as per the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court referenced its earlier decision in CBI, AHD, Patna v. Braj Bhushan Prasad & Ors., stating, "The sole determinative factor regarding the court having jurisdiction is the place where the offence was committed." The Court emphasized that the place of trial should be based on the location of the defalcation, not the place of conspiracy.

3. Adoption of Evidence in Multiple Cases:
The Court addressed the issue of adopting evidence recorded in one case for use in other related cases. It reiterated its previous stance that evidence recorded in any of the cases will be treated as evidence recorded by the proper court having jurisdiction. The Court stated, "The Special Judge need not call the witnesses already examined over again for repetition of what has already come on record."

4. Separate Trials for Different Offences:
The Court highlighted the necessity of separate trials for distinct offences, even if they arise from the same conspiracy. It referred to Section 219 and 220 of Cr.PC, which allow for separate charges and trials for offences committed within different periods. The Court explained, "Separate charges for distinct offences must be framed separately and they cannot be clubbed together for more than one year."

5. Conspiracy and Separate Offences:
The Court distinguished between a general conspiracy and separate conspiracies involving different accused persons at different times. It stated that while a general conspiracy may exist, the substantive offences committed in furtherance of the conspiracy are distinct and require separate trials. The Court noted, "There may be a larger conspiracy and smaller conspiracy which may develop in successive stages involving different accused persons."

6. Delay in Filing Appeals:
The Court addressed the issue of delay in filing appeals by the CBI and emphasized the need for timely action. It acknowledged the procedural delays within government departments but stressed that such delays should not hinder the pursuit of justice. The Court condoned the delay in filing the appeals, stating, "Sufficiency of cause has to be judged in a pragmatic manner so as to advance cause of justice."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgments and orders, allowing the appeals and directing the trial courts to expedite the trials. The Court emphasized the importance of separate trials for distinct offences, the proper jurisdiction for trials, and the adoption of evidence across related cases. It also highlighted the need for timely filing of appeals by the CBI to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.

← Previous Next →