http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KANDIMALLA SUBBAIAH AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/03/1961

BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA

CITATION:  1961 AIR 1241  CITATOR INFO :  R          1962 SC 876  (19)  R          1963 SC1850  (32,34,36)  R          1965 SC 706  (18)  D          1968 SC 709  (11)  F          1973 SC2204  (8)

ACT: Criminal Trial-Accused persons charged with more than  three offenses in the course of the same transaction, if could  be jointly  tried-Large  number  of charges  spread  over  long period-Framing of-Duty of Judge or Magistrate--Conspiracy if distinct   from  abetment-Special  judge   appointed   under Criminal  Law  Amendment Act, if could  try  offenses  under Criminal  Procedure  Code, at the same  trial  Indian  Penal Code,  1860 (Act XLV of 1860), SS. 109, .120B,  463-Code  of Criminal  Procedure,  1898 (Act V of 1898),  SS.  234,  239- Criminal Law Amendment Act (46 of 1952), SS. 6, 7-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (11 of 1947), S. 5. (1)  [1961] 3 S.C.R. 448. 195

HEADNOTE: The  High  Court  quashed the  charges  framed  against  the respondents.   The charge sheet stated that accused 1  to  9 had  committed  offenses under S. 12oB of the  Indian  Penal Code and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  1947, and  that  accused  No. had  committed  offenses  under  SS. 5(1)(c)  and 5, (i)(d) of the Prevention of  Corruption  Act and SS. 463, 464 Of the Indian Penal Code and accused 2 to 8 abetted all the offenses and each of the accused in addition had  committed  offenses under S. 420 Of  the  Indian  Penal Code.   The High Court directed the Special judge  to  frame fresh charges inter alia on the ground that charge No. 1 was an  omnibus  charge containing as many as 203  offenses  and that it was direct violation of SS. 234, 235 and 239 Of  the Code of Criminal Procedure.  Further that the Special  judge had  no jurisdiction to try the offenses under S. 120B  read with  SS. 466, 467 and 420 Of the Indian Penal Code  because he  was  appointed a Special judge under  the  Criminal  Law Amendment Act, only for trying offenses under Prevention  of Corruption  Act.  The question was whether all the  accused,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

persons  could  be  jointly tried in respect  of  all  these offenses. Held,  that when several persons had committed offenses,  in the  course of the same transaction, they could  jointly  be tried  in respect of all those offenses under S. 239 Of  the Code  of Criminal Procedure and the limitation placed by  S. 234  Of  the  Code could not come into  operation,  but  the charges  should  be suitably split up so  that  the  accused persons would not be prejudiced in answering the charges and defending themselves. Held,  further, there is no analogy between S. 120B  and  S. Log  of the Indian Penal Code.  There may be an  element  of abetment  in a conspiracy which is an offence by itself  but conspiracy  is  something  more than abetment  for  which  a person could separately be charged.  Offenses created  under SS. 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code are quite distinct and there is no warrant for limiting the prosecution to only one  element  of  conspiracy, that  is,  abetment  when  the allegation is that what a person did was something over  and above  that.   If  the  alleged offenses  flow  out  of  the conspiracy  the  appropriate  form  of  charge  would  be  a specific  charge in respect of each of those offenses  along with the charge of conspiracy. Held,  further, that the introduction of a large  number  of charges  spread  over  a  long  period  was  a  question  of propriety  and  it  should  be left  to  the  judge  or  the Magistrate  trying  the case to adopt the  course  which  he thought to be appropriate in the facts and circumstances  of the case. Held, also, that while a special judge appointed under S.  6 of  the Criminal Law Amendment Act has jurisdiction  to  try cases under S. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act he  can under  S. 7(3) Of the Criminal Law Amendment Act  try  other offenses  under  the Criminal Procedure Code for  which  the accused can be charged at the same trial. 196 In re Venkataramaiah, A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 130, disapproved. S.   Swaminatham  v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1957 S.C.  340, R.   v. Dawson, [1960] 1 All E.R. 558 and Durgadas  Tulsiram Sood v.   State, I.L.R. 1954 Bom. 554, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 109  of 1960. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated April  18,  1958,  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court  in Criminal, Misc.  Petition No. 1421 of 1957. H. J. Umrigar and T. M. Sen, for the appellant. The respondent did not appear. 1961.  March 8. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUDHOLKAR,  J.-The  State of Andhra Pradesh has come  up  in appeal  against  the order passed in revision  by  the  high Court of Andhra Pradesh quashing the charges framed  against nine  persons by Mr. Syed Firasath Hussain,  Special  Judge, Vijayawada. The revision petition was preferred by only  two of those persons. The  accused no. 1 Parthasarathi, who was a  lower  division clerk  in the Central Excise Circle Office  at  Narasaraopet was  in charge of the TP 1 permit books  (transport  permit) intended  for issue to Central Excise Officers for  granting permits  to  persons  applying bona  fide  for  licences  to transport  tobacco.   According to the  prosecution  two  of those  books  containing  25 permit forms  each  were  found

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

missing  from the aforesaid office.  The allegation is  that Parthasarathi sold those books to the remaining accused  for a  consideration  of  Rs.  400.  It  was  found  during  the investigation  that  seven permit forms from  out  of  these books  bad been used for transport of non-duty paid  tobacco after  blanks in those forms had been filled and the  signa- tures  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 197 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. 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.  120 B,  Indian  Penal Code read with a. 5(2)  of  Prevention  of Corruption  Act, 1947 (II of 1947).  It further states  that the  accused no. 1 had committed offenses under  s.  5(1)(c) and  5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947  as  also offenses under ss. 420, 463 and 464, Indian Penal Code.  The accused  nos.  2  to 8 are said to have  abetted  all  these offenses.  Each of these accused is in addition said to have committed offenses under s. 420, Indian Penal Code. The  Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada was appointed as  Special Judge  under  the  provisions of s. 6 of  the  Criminal  Law Amendment  Act, 1952 (II of 1952) to try offenses under  the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.  He framed the following charges:               "CHARGE NO.1.               That you, Accused 1 to 9 on or about 19-9-1953               to  5-11-53 agreed to do by illegal  means  to               wit, A-1 being a public servant in the Central               Excise  Department dishonestly sold two  blank               T.P.  1 books for Rs. 350 to one late  Jogayya               and  obtained pecuniary advantage for  himself               and  A-2 to A-8 and that A-9 forged 7  T.P.  1               forms,  out  of  the above  two  books,  which               forged T.P. 1s were used by A-2, A-3, A-5,  A-               7, A-8 with the assistance of A-4 and A-6  and               cheated  the merchants of Markapur and  Cumbum               by using the said forged T.P. 1s for the above               purpose  of cheating; and that the above  acts               were  done  by all of you in  pursuance  of  a               conspiracy  and  that  thereby  you  A-1  have               committed an offence punishable under  Section               120B of the I.P.C. read with               198               Sec.  5(1)(c)  and (d) punishable  under  Sec.               5(2)  of the Prevention of Corruption Act  and               also under Sec. 109 I.P.C. read with Sec. 490,               466 and 467 of the I.P.C. and that you,A-2  to               A-9  under See. 120 B read with  Sec.  5(1)(c)               and  (d) punishable under See. 5(2) of Act  11               of  1947  and See. 420, 466 and  467  and  471               I.P.C. and within my cognizance.               CHARGE NO. 11.               That  you A-1, being a public servant  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

             Central  Excise  Department,  being  a   Lower               Division   Clerk   in  the   office   of   the               Superintendent of Central Excise, Narasaraopet               Circle,  since 1951 and in such capacity  were               entrusted since 1951 with blank T.P. 1  books-               dishonestly sold two of the above said T.P.  1               books  under your control to one late  Jogayya               for  Rs. 350, in or about the month of  April,               1953     and     dishonestly,     fraudulently               misappropriated  the said amount  and  thereby               committed the offence of misconduct punishable               under  Section 5(2) read with See. 5(1)(c)  of               the  Prevention of Corruption Act, 11 of  1947               and within my cognizance.               CHARGE NO. 111.               That  you  A-1,  in  the  above  capacity,  by               corrupt and illegal means, and by abusing your               position  as  a public servant,  obtained  for               yourself  an amount of Rs. 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 Rs.  10,120-14-0, th e               amount  of revenue due to the Central  Govern-               ment  and  thereby committed  the  offence  of               Criminal misconduct punishable under See. 5(2)               read  with Sec. 5(1)(d) of the  Prevention  of               Corruption  Act  11  of  1947  and  within  my               cognizance.               CHARGE \TO.  IV.               That  you, A-9, on or about the  days  between               September  and November, 1953 forged  7  blank               T.P.      ls     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               filling  up the same within false  particulars               and fixing the signatures of different               199               Central  Excise Officials so as to  show  that               they  are  genuine  T.P. 1  permits  ’hat  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               purporting  to  be  valuable  securities  with               intent   and  that  they  may  be   used   for               transporting tobacco as duty paid tobacco  and               that   you   thereby  committed   an   offence               punishable  under Section 467 of the I. P.  C.               and within my cognizance.               CHARGE No..VI.               That  you, A-2 to A-8, on, or about  the  days               between  12-9-53  and 5-11-53  at  Chodavaram,               Satulur,  Velpur and Tenali  dishonestly  used               the  above seven forged T.P. Is  mentioned  in               Charge  No. IV as genuine, Which you  know  at               the time you used them as forged documents and               transported 26,989 lbs. non-duty paid  tobacco               as  duty  paid tobacco by  quoting  the  above               fictitious  documents as proof of  payment  of               duty  and  that  you’  thereby  committed   an               offence  punishable under Section 465 and  471

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

             of the I.P.C. and within my cognizance.               CHARGE No. VII.               That  you,  A-2 to A-8, on or about  the  days               between 19-9-53 and 6-11-53 at Cumbum and Mar-               kapur cheated (1) B. Ranga Subbayya of  Cumbum               (2) P. C, h. Venkata Subbaiah and (3) Shri  B.               Seshaiah  of Markapur and thereby  dishonestly               inducing them to deliver you, Rs. 10,994-10.3,               was  the property of the above  said  persons;               and  that  you thereby  committed  an  offence               punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. and within                             my cognizance." While  seven  of the accused persons were content  with  the charges,,  two preferred an application for revision  before the  High  Court which, as already stated, accepted  it  and quashed the charges and directed the Special Judge to  frame fresh charges on the lines indicated in the judgment. 200 Mr.  Umrigar, who appears for the State of  Andhra  Pradesh, while conceding that Charge No. 1 as it stands, is  involved and  obscure and requires to be reframed takes exception  to the observation of the High Court that the charge is bad for multiplicity.  ,It  not quite clear what the High Court  me- ant.  If it meant that separate charges should be framed for different  offenses  there can be no objection;  but  if  it meant  that  all these accused cannot be tried at  the  same trial then we have no doubt that it was in error.  The  High Court pointed out that this is an omnibus charge  containing as many as 203 offenses and that it is ’in direct  violation of  ss. 234, 235 and 239 of the Code of Criminal  Procedure. No  doubt, sub-s. (1) of s. 234 provides that not more  than three  offenses  of the same kind committed  by  an  accused person  within  the space of 12 months can be tried  at  the same trial.  But then s. 235(1) provides that if in any  one series  of  acts so connected together as to form  the  same transaction more offenses 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  offenses have  been committed in the course of the  same  transaction the  limitation  placed by s. 2314(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 offenses".  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, offenses committed in the course of the same transaction. Clearly,  therefore, all the accused persons could be  tried together  in  respect of all the offenses now  comprised  in charge no. 1. We, however, agree with 201 Mr.  Umrigar that it would be desirable to split  up  charge no.  1  suitably  go that the accused persons  will  not  be prejudiced  in  answering  the  charges  and  in   defending themselves. The learned Judge has hold, following a decision of a single Judge  in  In  re  Venkataramaiah  (1)  that  no  charge  of conspiracy   is   permissible  for  committing   which   the conspiracy  was  entered into and which  had  actually  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

committed.   In that case the learned Judge had observed  as follows at p. 132:               "Where the-matter has gone beyond the stage of               more  conspiracy and offences are  alleged  to               have  been  actually  committed  in  pursuance               thereof,   these  two  sections   are   wholly               irrelevant.   Conspiracy, it should  be  borne               in, mind, is one form of abetment (see s.  107               I.P.C.)  and  where an offence is  alleged  to               have been committed by more than two  persons,               such  of  them as actually took  part  in  the               commission   should   be  charged   with   the               substantive  offence,  while  those  who   are               alleged  to  have  abetted  it  by  conspiracy               should be charged with the offence of abetment               under s. 109 I.P.C. The Explanation to s.   109               makes this quite clear.  An offence is said to               be committed in consequence of abetment,  when               it is committed    in   pursuance    of    the               conspiracy,  and the abettor by conspiracy  in               made  punishable  (under  s.  109)  with   the               punishment provided for the actual offence." We are unable to accept this view.  Conspiracy to commit  an offence is itself an offence and a person can be  separately charged  with,  respect to such a conspiracy.  There  is  no analogy  between s. 120B and s. 109 I.P.C. There may  be  an element  of  abetment  in a conspiracy;  but  conspiracy  is something more than an abetment.  Offences created by s. 109 and 120B, I.P.C. are quite distinct and there is no  warrant for  limiting  the prosecution to only one element  of  con- spiracy, that is, abetment when the allegation is that  what a  person  did was something over and above  that.   Where,& number of offences are committed by (1) A.I.R. 1935 Mad. 130, 132. 202 several persons in pursuance of a conspiracy it is usual  to charge them with those, offences as well as with the offence of  conspiracy to commit those offences.  As an instance  of this we may refer to the case in S. Swaminatham v. State  of Madras  (1).   Though the point was not argued  before  this Court  in the way it appears to have been argued before  the Madras  High  Court  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 leave  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. Before  leaving  this point we would like to  refer  to  the decision  in R. v. Dawson (2) 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  con-               spiracy.........   this  court  feels  it   is               desirable  ’Jo 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

             and to lengthen matters by adding a charge  of               conspiracy.   Secondly, it can work  injustice               because   it   means  that   evidence,   which               otherwise   would  be  inadmissible   on   the               substantive  charges against  certain  people,               becomes inadmissible.  Thirdly, it adds to the               length and complexity of the case so that  the               trial  may easily be well High unworkable  and               impose a quite intolerable strain both on  the               Court and on the jury. The learned Judges in fact quashed the conviction (1) A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 340, 343, 344. (2) [1960] 1 All.  E.R. 558, 563. 203 for conspiracy in the case before them.  We agree that it is not desirable to charge the accused persons with  conspiracy with  the  ulterior object of letting in an  evidence  which would  otherwise be inadmissible and that it is  undesirable to  complicate  a  trial by introducing a  large  number  of charges spread over a long period.  But then this is only  a question of propriety and it should be left to the Judge  or the magistrate trying the case to adopt, the course which he thinks  to be appropriate in the facts and circumstances  of the case.  It cannot be said as a matter of law that such  a trial is prohibited by the Code of Criminal Procedure. The  High  Court has further held that the  learned  Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the offences under s.  120B read  with ss. 466, 467 and 420 because he was  appointed  a Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act only  for trying offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.   No doubt,  he was appointed in the circumstances stated by  the High  Court,  and therefore he will have  that  jurisdiction which  he is competent to exercise under the  Prevention  of Corruption Act or the Criminal Law Amendment Act.  Section 6 of the former provides that the State Government may appoint a Special Judge to try the following offences:               (a)   an offence punishable under section 161,               section  165  or section 165A  of  the  Indian               Penal  Code (Act XLV of 1860)  or  sub-section               (2)   of  section  5  of  the  Prevention   of               Corruption Act, 1947 (11 of 1947); (b)   any               conspiracy to commit or any attempt to  commit               or  any  abetment  of  any  of  the   offences               specified in clause (a). Sub-s. (1) of s. 7 provides that notwithstanding any.  thing contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or in  any other    law  the offences specified in sub-s. (1)  of  s.  6 shall be triable by special judges only. Sub-s.  (3)  of s. 7 provides that when trying any  case,  a special  judge  may  also try any  offences  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. 204 Clearly,  therefore,  accused no. 1 could be tried  by   the Special  Judge for offences under ’s.’ 120 B read  With  ss. 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. The  High  Court has further held that the provisions  of  a 196A(2)  of  the Code of Criminal Procedure  have  not  been complied  with  and  therefore the  charges  in  respect  of offences under as. 466 and 467 could not be enquired into by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

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, unless the  State  Govern-               ment,  or  a Chief  Presidency  Magistrate  or               District  Magistrate empowered in this  behalf               by  the  State Government, has,  by  order  in               writing,  consented to the initiation  of  the               proceedings: Offences under ss. 466 and 467 are admittedly non-cognizable and,  therefore,  it would seem from the plain  language  of sub-s.  (2) that for the offences under s. 120 B  read  with ss. 466 and 467, I.P.C. the sanction of the Government  will be  necessary.  Mr. Umrigar referred us to the  decision  in Durgadas Tulsiram Sood v. State (1) and said that since  the object  of the conspiracy was to cheat the Government,  that is,  to  commit  an  offence under s.  420  I.P.C.  and  the offences under as. 466 and 467 were only means to that  end, the  trial was not vitiated simply because no  sanction  was obtained  for  prosecuting  the  accused  for  offences   of criminal conspiracy to commit non-cognizable offences; under as.  466 and 467 I.P.C. We do not think it necessary to  say anything on the point because in (1)  I.L.R. 1954 Bom. 554. 205 any  case the case has to go back to the Special  Judge  for re-framing  the  charges and there is time  enough  for  the Government to consider whether it should accord sanction  to the  prosecution  of  the  various  accused  for  the   non- cognizable  offences alleged to have been committed by  them in  pursuance  of  conspiracy,  assuming  of  course,   that sanction is necessary. In the result we allow the appeal and set.aside the order of the High Court and direct the Special Judge to, frame  fresh charges  and  proceed with the trial.  The matter  has  been pending  for a long time and we direct that the  trial  will proceed with. all expedition.                                         Appeal allowed.                                         Retrial ordered.