9911796707
TMI Blog1961 (3) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat seven permit forms from out of these books had been used for transport of non-duty paid tobacco after blanks in those forms had been filed and the signatures of certain Central Excise Officers forged on them. Further, according to the prosecution, accused Nos. 2 to 8 got authorisation letters prepared with the help of accused No. 9 by forging the signatures of the supposed consignors of the tobacco. With the help of these documents the accused Nos. 2 to 8 are said to have transported tobacco to the licensed premises of certain persons and received payments for the tobacco delivered to them. 3. The prosecution alleged that all this was done by all the accused by entering into a conspiracy, the object of which was to procure and utilise blank TP 1 forms, fill them in, forge the signatures of Central Excise Officers and use them as genuine for the purpose of transporting tobacco without paying duty upon it. The charge sheet states that the accused Nos. 1 to 9 have committed the offence under s. 120B, Indian Penal Code read with s. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947). It further states that the accused No. 1 had committed offences under s. 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd illegal means, and by abusing your position as a public servant, obtained for yourself an amount of ₹ 350 being the sale proceeds of the two Blank T.P. 1 books, from one late Jogayya and obtained for A-2 to A-8, a pecuniary advantage of ₹ 10,120-14-0, the amount of revenue due to the Central Government and thereby committed the offence of Criminal misconduct punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947 and within my cognizance. CHARGE NO. IV. That you, A-9, on or about the days between September and November, 1953 forged 7 blank T.P. 1s Nos. 610432, 610443, 610460, 610448, 61044, 610468, 610446 as if they are documents to have been made by the Central Excise Officials in their official capacity by filing up the same within false particulars and fixing the signatures of different Central Excise Officials so as to show that they are genuine T.P. 1 permits that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 466 I.P.C. and within my cognizance. CHARGE No. V. That you, A-p, on or about the days between September and November, 1953 forged the 7 T.P. 1 permits mentioned in Charge No. IV purport ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... But then s. 235(1) provides that if in any one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence. Therefore, where the alleged offences have been committed in the course of the same transaction the limitation placed by s. 234(1) cannot operate. No doubt, the offence mentioned in charge No. 1 is alleged to have been committed not by just one person but by all the accused and the question is whether all these persons can be jointly tried in respect of all these offences. To this kind of charge s. 239 would apply. This section provides that the following persons may be charged and tried together, namely : (1) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction; (2) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment or an attempt to commit such an offence; (3) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction. 7. Clearly, therefore, all the accused persons could be tried together in respect of all the offences now comprised in charge No. 1. We, ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt and before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, this Court did not see anything wrong in the trial of several persons accused of offences under s. 120B and s. 420 I.P.C. We cannot, therefore, accept the view taken by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh that the charge of conspiracy was bad. If the alleged offences are said to have flown out of the conspiracy the appropriate form of charge would be a specific charge in respect of each of those offences along with the charge of conspiracy. 10. Before leaving this point we would like to refer to the decision in R. v. Dawson [1960] 1 All. E.R. 558 which Mr. Umrigar very fairly brought to our notice, respondents being ex parte. In that case Finnemore J. who delivered the judgment of the Court observed : Now with regard to the first count for conspiracy..... this court feels it is desirable to say something. This court has more than once warned of the dangers of conspiracy counts, especially these long conspiracy counts, which one counsel referred to as a mammoth conspiracy. Several reasons have been given. First of all if there are substantive charges which can be proved, it is in general undesirable to complicate matters and to len ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other than an offence specified in s. 6 with which the accused may under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be charged at the same trial. 13. Clearly, therefore, accused No. 1 could be tried by the Special Judge for offences under s. 120B read with Sections 466, 467 and 420 I.P.C. Similarly the other accused who are said to have abetted these offences could also be tried by the Special Judge. The view of the High Court is thus erroneous and its directions with respect to these offences are set aside. 14. The High Court has further held that the provisions of s. 196A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been complied with and therefore the charges in respect of offences under Sections 466 and 467 could not be enquired into by the Special Judge. S. 196A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads thus : No Court shall take cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, . . . (2) in a case where the object of the conspiracy is to commit any non-cognizable offence, or a cognizable offence not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years, or upwards, unles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
