http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: YASH PAL MITTAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT03/11/1977

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. UNTWALIA, N.L. DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 2433            1978 SCR  (1) 781  1977 SCC  (4) 540

ACT: Penal  Code (Act 45 of 1860), sec. 120A and 120B-Object  and scope of. Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), sec.  196A(ii)-sec. 196  of  1973 Code-Object of criminal conspiracy,  if  clear from  the charge itself, whether trial is vitiated for  want of sanction udder s. 196A(2).

HEADNOTE: A  criminal  case was filed in 1961  against  the  appellant under  s. 120B of the Penal Code while in respect of  others for  various offences under ss. 465, 471/ 466, 476/466,  470 and 419 read with s. 120B, Penal Code.  The Special Judicial Magistrate,  Punjab Camp Jullundur framed charges under  the aforesaid sections against the accused.  An objection, "that for  want  of  sanction under s.  196A(2)  of  the  Criminal Procedure  Code  1898 the trial under s.  120B,  I.P.C.  was invalid,"  raised by the accused appellant was  rejected  by the  Trial  Court on 6-6-1970 holding that no  sanction  was necessary in the case.  A revision application filed against the  said orders was dismissed by the Punjab High  Court  on 24-3-1972.  The appellant thereafter obtained special  leave on 5-4-1973 from this Court. ’Dismissing the appeal the Court, HELD:(1)  The  very  agreement, concert  or  league  is  the ingredient  of the offence of criminal conspiracy  under  s. 120A introduced for the first time in 1913 in Chapter VA  of the  Penal  Code.  It is not necessary that  all  the  cons- pirators  must know each and every detail of the  conspiracy as  long as they are co-participators in the main object  of the conspiracy.  There may be so many devices and techniques adopted  to  achieve the common goal of the  conspiracy  and there  may  be  division of performances  in  the  chain  of actions  with  one object to achieve the real end  of  which every  collaborator must be aware and in which each  one  of them  must be interested.  There must be unity of object  or purpose  but there may be plurality of means sometimes  even unknown  to  one  another,  amongst  the  conspirators.   In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of  the conspirators even unknown to the others.   The  only relevant  factor is that all means adopted and illegal  acts

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

done  must  be  and purported to be in  furtherance  of  the object of the conspiracy even though there may be  sometimes misfire or over-shooting by some of the conspirators.   Even if  some  steps  are  resorted  to by  one  or  two  of  the conspirators without the knowledge of the others it will not affect  the  culpability  of  those  others  when  they  are associated with the object of the conspiracy. [784 F-H, 785 A] Major  B. G. Barsav v. The State of Bombay [1962] 2 SCR  195 at 228, followed. (2)  That  an  accused  himself  is  not  charged  with  the ultimate  offence  which  is  the  object  of  the  criminal conspiracy  is besides the point in a charge under  s.  120B I.P.C.  as long as he is a party to the conspiracy with  the end  in  view.   Whether  the  charges  will  be  ultimately established  against the accused is a  completely  different matter within the domain of the ’Trial Court. [785 F] (3 ) In the instant case : (a)The main object of the criminal conspiracy in the first charge is undoubtedly "cheating by personation".  The  other means adopted, inter alia, are preparation or causing to  be prepared spurious passports; forging or causing to be forged entries  and endorsements in that connection; and use of  or causing  to be used forged passport as genuine in  order  to facilitate travel of IF persons abroad.  The final object of the  conspiracy  in the first charge being  the  offence  of cheating  by  personation,  the  other  offences   described therein  are steps albeit offences themselves in and of  the ultimate crime.  Without achiev- 78 2 ing  that  goal other acts would be of no  material  use  in which any person could be necessarily interested.  That  the appellant  himself  does  not personate  another  person  is beside the point when he, is alleged to be a collaborator of the conspiracy with that object. [785D-E-F] (b)Although  the  word "cheating by personation"  was  not mentioned  in the charge, no valid objection could be  made, as  the entire recitals are clear arid are also followed  up by a specific mention of the offence under s. 419, I.P.C. [783 H 784 A] Bhanwar-  Singh  & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan [1968]  2  SCR 528, distinguished. (c)The object of criminal conspiracy is absolutely  clear, the object is not cheating simpliciter under s. 417, I.P.C.                                  [785 H] (d)Since the object of criminal conspiracy is cheating  by personation  u/s.  419 I.P.C. punishable  with  imprisonment which  may extend to three years, section 196A(2) is no  bar to the present trial in the absence ofa sanction. The fact that the accused are charged with other non-cognisableoffences in  the same trial cannot affect the validity of  the  trial [786 C-D]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    CriminalAppeal    No.81 1973. Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order  dated 24-3-1972  of  the  Punjab  & Harayan  High  Court  in  Crl. Revision No. 739 of 1970. Frank Anthony and D. N. Mishra for the Appellant. R. L. Kohli and R. N. Sachthey for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GOSWAMI,  J.-The  criminal case, out of  which  this  appeal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

arises,  goes back to the year 1961.  On July 1,  1967,  the Special   Judicial   Magistrate  Punjab,   camp   Jullundur, committed  the appellant along with several others to  stand trial  in the Court of Sessions under various charges,  such as under sections 465, 471/466, 476/466, 417, 419 read  with section 120B IPC.  Apparently it took nearly three years for the  trial  to commence.  On objection being raised  by  the accused  with regard to the sanction under  section  196A(2) Cr.  P. C., 1898, the trial court on June 6, 1970,  rejected the  same by holding that no sanction was necessary  in  the case.   The trial court, however, held that  the  particular sanction  accorded  under  section 196A(2) Cr.   P.  C.  was invalid, the correctness of which was not challenged  before us. That led to a revision application by the accused before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.  That was also rejected on March  24,  1972.   The  appellant  obtained  special  leave against the order of the High Court on April 5, 1973. Even  such  a short matter, as it is, where no  records  are required to, be prepared. has come, up for hearing before us after  well over four years.  True, the accused  profits  by the  delay  in  many ways but the  State  should  have  been vigilant  to,  apply for an expeditious hearing  of  such  a short  matter since the trial has been inordinately  delayed on  account of this.  The methodology of disposal of such  a matter, like the pattern we have been recently adopting, may suitably  be to dispose of the whole matter within  a  month after notice of motion to the State at the the of hearing of the special leave petition. 783 The  only question raised before us by Mr. Frank Anthony  is with  regard  to the invalidity of the trial  under  section 120B  IPC in absence of sanction tinder section 196A(2)  Cr. P. C., 1898. In order to appreciate the objection we may at once turn  to the  charges framed in the trial.  The appellant faces  only one charge alone with II others as follows:-               "Firstly:-That  you  all  during  the   period               January,  1961  to May, 1962 in the  State  of               Punjab,  it Bombay and at Calcutta were  party               with  the  following accused persons  who  are               absconding namely;               1.    Julman Singh s/o Kishen Singh v.  Mazara               Navabad, Distt.  Jullundur.               2.    Gurdev Singh s/o Munshi Ram v. Cheekahi,               Distt.  Jullundur.               3.    Minder s/o Sucha Singh v. Sarhala Distt.               Jullundur.               4.    Harnam   Singh   s/o  Udham   Singh   v.               Pathlave, Distt.  Jullundur.               and with one Jodh.  Singh son of Vir Singh,  8               Modern  Colony, District Jullundur and  others               to a criminal conspiracy to do or cause to  be               done  certain illegal acts, namely to  prepare               or to be prepared spurious Government of India               Passports  booklets, to forge or cause  to  be               forged entries and endorsements therein and to               use or cause to be used such forged  passports               as  genuine,  knowing  or  having  reason   to               believe,  them  to  be  forged,  in  order  to               facilitate travel of persons abroad  including               yourselves  and  thereby  to  cheat  the   Em-               barkation Authorities at Air Ports by inducing               such authorities to believe that the passports               were  valid and genuine and upon  such  belief

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

             permit  the  travel abroad......  And  thereby               committed an offence punishable u/s 120-B  IPC               read  with sections 465, 476/466  and  419/IPC               and  within  the cognizance of  the  court  of               Sessions". The first charge in which all accused. are, named  including tile  appellant  is  tile principal  charge  describing  the nature  and  object of the conspiracy in which a  number  of persons including. absconders and some unknown persons  were involved.   With  regard,  to the.  twelve  other  remaining charges, although the appellant was not charged under any of them,  his  other companions were charged and  in  eight  of these charges, specific mention was made of various offences being committed "in pursuance of the said conspiracy".  Some of  the  accused  persons  are  charged  tinder  substantive offences  which  are  connected  with  the  object  of  tile conspiracy.   The  court could have added in  the  remaining charges also that the offences were, committed in  pursuance of  the said conspiracy but much cannot be made of its  non- mention at this stage at any rate. Mr. Anthony submits very strenuously that the first and  the only charge in which the appellant is involved speaks merely of  "cheating"  which is an offence under  section  417  IPC punishable with imprisonment for one year.  When pointed out that the charges does refer specifically to section 419 IPC, be submits that the mention of the offence 784 is  not  decisive  when the recitals in the  charge  do  not notify to the accused "cheating by personation".  He  relies strongly  on the decision of this Court in Bhanwar  Singh  & Anr.  v. State of Rajasthan(1) as his main plank of  attack. He draws our attention to the observation therein that  "the object  of the conspiracy has to be determined, not only  by reference  to the sections of the penal enactment,  referred to  in  the  charge,  but  on  a  reading  of  the   charges themselves". It is not possible to accede to the above submission of  Mr. Anthony.  The aforesaid observation cannot be called in  aid at the threshold of a trial divorced from the context.  That was  a case where the accused were, convicted at  the  trial and  the appeal by special leave was dismissed.   The  court was  in a position to ascertain in that case as  to  whether the  accused  had  proper  notice of  the  charge  with  the definite  object  of conspiracy and whether  there  was  any prejudice to the accused in any manner affecting the  trial. We  are  however, called upon to examine the matter  at  the threshold.   We  have carefully read the  first  charge  and although  the  words  "cheating  by  personation"  were  not mentioned  therein, no valid objection could be made as  the entire recitals are clear and are alsofollowed  up  by   a specific  mention of the offence under section 419 IPC.   We are  not required to ascertain the object of the  conspiracy from  mere mention of section 419 IPC but from the  recitals in  the charge.  The decision in Bhanwar Singh (Supra)  does not  come  to  the aid of counsel in this  case.   Since  an objection  like this has been made, it will be even open  to the  trial  court  to  alter the  Words  of  the  charge  by specifically mentioning "cheating by personation". Besides. the other charges levelled against the alleged  co- conspirators  also throw sufficient light on the  object  of the  conspiracy and it is not necessary that  the  appellant should  figure or for the matter of that all accused  should figure in all the charges. The  offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120A is  a distinct  offence introduced for the first time in  1913  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

Chapter VA of the Penal Code.      The    very    agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It is not  necessary that all the conspirators must know each  and everydetail  of the conspiracy as long as they are  co- participators  in the main object of the conspiracy.   There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common  goal of the conspiracy and there may be division  of performances  in  the chain of actions with  one  object  to achieve  the  real end of which every collaborator  must  be aware  and  in which each one of them  must  be  interested. There  must be unity of object or purpose but there  may  be plurality  of means sometimes even unknown to  one  another, amongst  the  conspirators.  In achieving the  goal  several offences, may be committed by some of the conspirators  even unknown to the others.  The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be  in  furtherance  of the object of  the  conspiracy  even though  there may be sometimes misfire or  over-shooting  by some  of the conspirators.  Even if some steps are  resorted to by one or two- of the conspirators without the  knowledge of the others it will not affect the culpability of those (1)[1968] 2 S.C.R. 528. 785 others  when  they  are associated with the  object  of  the conspiracy.   The significance of criminal conspiracy  under section  120A is brought out pithily by this Court in  Major B. G. Darsay v. The State of Bombay.(1) thus:               "The  gist of the offences is an agreement  to               break  the  law.   The  parties  to  such   an               agreement   will   be   guilty   of   criminal conspiracy, t hough the illegal act agreed  to               be done has not been done.  So too, it is  not               an  ingredient  of the offence  that  all  the               parties  should agree to de a  single  illegal               act.   It  may comprise the  commission  of  a               number  of  acts.  Under s. 43 of  the  Indian               Penal  Code, an act would be illegal if it  is               an  offence  or if it is  prohibited  by  law.               Under the first charge the accused are charged               with have conspired to do three categories  of               illegal  acts, and the mere fact that  all  of               them  could  not be  convicted  separately  in               respect  of  each  of  the  offences  has   no               relevancy in considering the question  whether               the offence of conspiracy has been  committed.               They   are  all  guilty  of  the  offence   of               conspiracy to do illegal acts, though for  in-               dividual  offences  all  of them  may  not  be               liable." We  are in respectful agreement with the above  observations with regard lo the offence of criminal conspiracy. The  main  object of the criminal conspiracy  in  the  first charge  is undoubtedly cheating by personation.   The  other means adopted, inter alia, are preparation or causing to  be prepared spurious passports; forging or causing to be forged entries  and endorsements in that connection; and use of  or causing  to be used forged passports as genuine in order  to facilitate  travel of persons abroad.  The final  object  of the  conspiracy  in the first charge being  the  offence  of cheating  by  personation, and we find,  the  other  offence described therein are steps, albeit, offences themselves, in aid  of  the ultimate crime.  The charge  does  not  connote plurality of objects of the conspiracy.  That the  appellant himself is not charged with the ultimate offence,, which  is the  object of the criminal conspiracy, is beside the  point

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

in a charge under section 120B IPC as long as he is a  party to the conspiracy with the end in view.  Whether the charges will  be  ultimately established against the  accused  is  a completely  different matter within the domain of the  trial court. The principal object of the criminal conspiracy in the first charge  is  thus  "cheating  by  personation"  and   without achieving  that goal other acts would be of no material  use in  which any person could be necessarily interested.   That the  appellant himself does not personate another person  is beside the point when he is alleged to be a collaborator  of the  conspiracy  with that object.  We have seen  that  some persons have been individually and specifically charged with cheating  by personation under section 419 IPC.   They  were also  charged  along with the appellant under  section  120B IPC.  The object of criminal conspiracy is absolutely  clear and there is no substance in the argument that the object is merely to cheat simpliciter under section 417 IPC. (1)[1962] 2 S.C.R. 195 at 228. 786 Section  196A(2)  Cr.  P. C. provides that "no  court  shall take  cognizance  of  the  offence  of  criminal  conspiracy punishable under section 120 B 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  Government               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."               x          x         x         x Since  the object of the criminal conspiracy is cheating  by personation   under   section  419   IPC   punishable   with imprisonment  which  may  extend  to  three  years,  section 196A(2)  is no bar to the present trial in the absence of  a sanction.  The fact that the accused are charged with  other non-cognizable offences in the same trial cannot affect  the validity of the trial. There  is no merit in  this  appeal which is dismissed. The records shallbe        despatched immediately  to  the trial court which will dispose  of  the case at an early date. S.R.                         Appeal dismissed’. 787