Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
BHANWAR SINGH & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
05/12/1967
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
BENCH:
VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
CITATION:
1968 AIR 709 1968 SCR (2) 528
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1973 SC2204 (12)
D 1977 SC2433 (7)
ACT:
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) ss. 233 and 196-
A(2)-Joint trial of charges-- Offence under s. 120 B. I.P.C.
read with ss. 467 and 471 I.P.C. requiring sanction for
prosecution-Sanction not obtained-- Offence under s. 120 B
read with s. 420 I.P.C. not requiring sanction--Joint trial
not illegal if main object of conspiracy is to commit latter
offence.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants along with two others were charged with
having entered into a criminal conspiracy in pursuance of
which postal orders and cheques in the course of transit by
post were pilfered and after various alterations being made
therein were encashed at post offices and banks. The
charges inter alia were under ss. 467/471 read with s. 120-B
and a. 420 read with s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The
Sessions Judge convicted all the four accused but the High
Court maintained the conviction only of the two appellants.
In appeal before this Court the appellants urged that
inasmuch as the accused were prosecuted for non-cognizable
offences under ss. 467/471 read with s. 120-B I.P.C. the
trial was illegal and void as the necessary sanction under
s. 196-A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been
obtained. It was further urged that the mere fact that the
accused were also tried for the offence of cheating, under
s. 420 I.P.C. for which no sanction was required, would not
make the trial valid. Under these circumstances it was
contended that the joint trial for cognizable and non-
cognizable offences was illegal and void.
HELD : It is necessary to keep in mind the difference
between the object of a conspiracy and the means adopted for
realising that object. No sanction is necessary under s.
196-A(2) Cr. P.C. when the object of the conspiracy is to
commit the offence of cheating (420 I.P.C.) but forgery of
documents (467 I.P.C.) and similar non-cognizable offences
are also committed, as merely steps taken, by one or other
of the a for the purpose of effecting the main object of the
conspiracy. [533 F-H]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
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. The charges against the appellants showed that
the only object of the conspiracy was to cheat the banks or
the post offices, referred to in the charges, which is an
offence under s. 420 read with s. 120-B I.P.C. for which no
sanction is necessary. The forging of the documents and
usuing such forged documents were only means adopted by the
accused for realising the aforesaid object. Therefore the
trial of the accused in the present case for offences under
ss. 120-B read with ss. 467/471 and 420 I.P.C. and other
allied offences, cannot be held to be illegal on the ground
that sanction under s. 196-A(2) of the Criminal Procedure
Code had not been obtained. [534 B-E]
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kandimala Subbaiah, [1962] 1
S.C.R. 194. Ramchandra Rango v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1939 Bom.
129, Durgadas Tulsiram v. State, A.I.R. 1955 Bom. 82, Abdul
Kadar v. State, A.I.R. 1964 Bom. 133, Paresh Nath v.
Emperor, A.I.R. 1947 Cal. 32, Golam Rahman
528
529
Notes p. 52 Vadlamudi v. State of A.P. A.I.R. 1961 A.P. 448,
referred to.
Subbaiah, In re : I.L.R. 1958 A.P. 791, Jadeda Meramanji v.
State of Gujarat, (1963)2 Cr. L.J. 713, Nibaran Chandra v.
Emperor, A.I.R. 1929 Cal. 754 and Madan Lal v. State of
Punjab, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1590, distinguished.
JUDGMENT:
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 137 of
1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 9, 1967 of the Rajasthan High Court in S. B. Criminal
Appeal No. 254 of 1966.
Sobhag Mal Jain, for the appellants.
H. R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J. The two appellants, in this appeal, by
special leave, challenge their conviction, by the Additional
Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jaipur City, for offences under ss.
120B, 420, 420 read with 511, and 467 read with 471, I.P.C.,
as confirmed by the High Court of Rajasthan, at Jodhpur.
Bhanwar Singh has also been convicted, for an offence under
S. 380, I.P.C. Both of them have been sentenced to various
terms of imprisonment and fine, for these offences, and the
sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run
concurrently.
The two appellants, along with two others, who have since
been acquitted, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge,
for various offences, as indicated below. There was a
common charge of criminal conspiracy, under S. 120B, IPC, to
do, or cause to be done, illegal acts, viz., offences of
theft, cheating, forgeries, etc., against all the four
accused. Under this head, the allegation was that the four
accused agreed, among themselves, to commit theft and
pilferage, of Indian and British postal orders and bank
cheques, belonging to different persons, which were in
transmission, by post and that, after such pilfering, the
names of the original payees and the names of the paying
post offices were erased and forgery was committed by
writing the names of fictitious persons, or the names of
some of the accused, and of different post offices. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
further allegation was that the accused agreed to use, as
genuine, all such pilfered and forged postal orders and
cheques, which the accused knew, or had reasons to believe,
were forged documents. There was also an allegation that
all the accused had also agreed to present, such pilfered
and forged postal orders and cheques, for encashment at the
post offices and banks at Ajmer and Jaipur, through the two
appellants and Yasoda Devi, 4th accused, pretending to be
either the original payees or the substituted payees. It
was further alleged that the accused had agreed to cheat, or
attempt to cheat, the postal
L2Sup. CI/68-3
530
authorities and banks, at Ajmer and Jaipur, by dishonestly
inducing them to make payment to the appellants and Yasoda
Devi, in respect of the pilfered and forged postal orders
and cheques. It Was also stated that the accused committed
the various acts, in pursuance of the agreement, regarding
the postal orders and cheques, details of which were given
under that charge. Appellant Bhanwar Singh was also further
charged that, in pursuance of the conspiracy, during October
1956 and December 1957, he committed theft of various postal
orders and cheques, belonging to various persons and that he
also forged certain postal orders, which were valuable
securities, by removing the names of the original payees and
inserting his own name and that he thereby cheated the
postal authorities at Jaipur, by dishonestly inducing them
to deliver certain amounts against such postal orders, which
were really payable to a third party, and thereby he
committed offences of theft, forgery and cheating, under ss.
380, 467 and 420, I.P.C. There were also certain further
charges, for offences punishable under S. 471; and of an
attempt to commit cheating in respect of a cheque,
punishable under S. 420 read with S. 51 1, IPC.
Similarly, against Kishanlal, the 2nd appellant, there were
additional charges, framed under ss. 467, 420, 420 read with
511 and 471, I.P.C. Kapoorchand was also charged under ss.
380 and 467 I.P.C., and Yasoda Devi, under ss. 467, 471, 420
and 419 I.P.C.
The case of the prosecution, in brief, was as follows.
Bhanwar Singh and Kapoorchand were constables in the C.I.D.,
Ajmer Zone, during 1956-57. In the course of their duties
of censoring postal mail, these two constables, after having
opened the mail, for the purpose of censoring, pilfered
certain Indian postal orders and British postal orders and
cheques and, after erasing the names of the original payees,
as also the names of the post offices or banks, where
payment was to be made, inserted their own names or some
fictitious names and got the postal orders or cheques
encashed at different post officers and banks. According to
the prosecution, Bhanwar Singh and Kapoorchand had entered
into a conspiracy, with Kishanlal and Yashoda Devi, whose
services were utilised for getting the moneys from the
Banks. The matter came to light when the payees did not
receive the cheques or the postal orders intended for them
and lodged complaints with the post offices and banks. On
investigation, the four accused were charged, as detailed
above.
The accused denied the charges levelled against them. The
learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the
charge of criminal conspiracy was established, against all
the four accused The first appellant was found to be the
main accused and he was
531
convicted under ss. 380, 467/471, 420/511 read with S. 120B
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
I.P.C. The second appellant and Yashoda Devi were convicted
under ss. 467, 471 and 420 read with S. 120B IPC.
Kapoorchand was however convicted only for offences under
ss. 380 and 467 read with 120-B, IPC. The learned Sessions
Judge sentenced all of them to various terms of
imprisonment, and fine, for the different offences, as
stated already.
All the four accused challenged their conviction for these
offences and the sentence passed against them, be before the
High Court of Rajasthan. Two contentions were raised by the
accused; (i) that the trial held by the Sessions Judge was
illegal and void, inasmuch as the prosecution had been
conducted, without obtaining the necessary sanction, under
S. 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1 in respect of
the charge under ss. 467 and 471 read with S. 120B IPC; (ii)
that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, did not
establish the guilt of the accused. Both these contentions
have been negatived by the High Court, so far as the
appellants herein are concerned. The High Court, however,
acquitted Yashoda Devi, holding that the prosecution
evidence id not establish her guilt, beyond reasonable
doubt. The High Court also acquitted Kapoorchand holding
that the trial against him was void, because the necessary
sanction had not been obtained, under S. 196A of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
On behalf of the appellants, Mr. Jain, learned counsel,
raised the same two contentions before us. Counsel urged
that inasmuch as the accused were prosecuted for non-
cognizable offences under ss. 467/471 read with S. 120B,
IPC., the trial was illegal and void, inasmuch as the
necessary sanction, under S. 196A of the Code had not been
obtained. Learned counsel further urged that the mere fact
that the accused were also tried for the offence of cheat-
ing, under S. 420 IPC, which is cognizable and for which
punishment by way of imprisonment extending to 7 years could
be imposed, and for which no sanction was necessary, would
not make the trial valid. Under such circumstances, the
joint trial for cognizable and non-cognizable offences was
illegal and void.
Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for the State, met this conten-
tion, on behalf of the appellant, by pointing out that the
main object of the conspiracy was to cheat the banks and the
post offices, by obtaining money from them; the forgeries
committed by the accused on the cheques and postal orders
were only incidental to achieve the main object of the
conspiracy, viz., to commit the offence under S. 420 IPC.
Under those circumstances, Mr. Khanna pointed out, it was
not necessary to obtain sanction under S. 196A of the Code
and therefore there was no illegality,. which would vitiate
the trial, held by the Sessions Judge.
532
We have already indicated the offences for which the
appellants and the other two accused, who have since been
acquitted, were tried. It is enough to note that there was
a charge under S. 120B, read with s. 467/471 and 420 IPC.
The offences under s. 467 and 471 are non-cognizable, but
the offence under s. 420 is a cognizable one for which the
punishment could be imprisonment extending to 7 years.
Therefore, if the object of the conspiracy, under s. 120B,
was to commit a non-cognizable offence, under s. 467 or 471
I.P.C., the obtaining of sanction, from the authorities
mentioned in sub-s. (2) of s. 196A, was absolutely
necessary, and the absence of such sanction would vitiate
the trial, for such offences. Similarly, if the object of
the conspiracy, under S. 120B, was to commit a cognizable
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
offence under s. 420 IPC, which is punishable with
imprisonment for a term above 2 years, no sanction is
necessary, under s. 196A. The question is, whether sanction
was necessary in the case before us, when there was a trial
for offences under s. 467/471 and 420 IPC, read with S.
120B.
In the instant case, it is admitted that no sanction was ob-
tained.
In The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kandimalla Subbaiah(1) the
question arose, before this Court, whether sanction under s.
196A of the Code was necessary when there was a trial for
offences under s. 120B, read with ss. 466, 467 and 420, IPC.
It was argued, on behalf of the State, that since the object
of the conspiracy was to cheat the Government i.e., to
commit an offence under s. 420 IPC, and as the offences
under ss. 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 ss. 466 and 467
IPC. But, in that decision, this Court did not express any
opinion on this point, as the matter was sent back to the
trial Court, for framing fresh charges and proceeding with
the trial, after observing that it was for the Government to
consider whether it should accord sanction for prosecution
of non-cognizable offences, assuming that such sanction was
necessary. The question, that was thus left open, in that
decision, arises for consideration, now, in the instant case
before us.
On behalf of the appellant, reliance has been placed on
three decisions, in support of the contention that under
such circumstances, the trial is illegal and void. Those
decisions are: Subbaiah, In re:(2), of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court; Jadeda Meramanji v. State of Gujarat(3), of the
Gujarat High Court; and Nibaran Chandra v. Emperor(4), of
the Calcutta High Court.
(1) [1962] 1 S.C.R. 194.
(3) [1963] 2 Cr.L.J. 713.
(2) I.L.R. 1958 A.P. 791.
(4) A.I.R. 1929 Cal. 754.
533
The decision of the Calcutta High Court does not assist the
appellant, because the charge that was framed was of
criminal conspiracy, under s. 120B read with s. 384 IPC.
The object of the conspiracy having been to commit an
offence, under s. 384 IPC, which is a non-cognizable
offence, it was held by the Calcutta High Court that the
Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence, without
the necessary sanction, under s. 196A; and, on this
ground, the High Court held that the trial was void.
In the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat High
Courts, referred to above, it has been held that in respect
of a prosecution, for criminal conspiracy, under s. 120B,
read with es. 466 and 467 IPC., under which sections the
offences are non-cognizable, the consent, contemplated under
s. 196 (A) (2) is a pre-requisite to any Court taking
cognizance of that offence; it has also been held that
sanction is not necessary to prosecute a case of criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence under s. 420 IPC. The legal
proposition, stated as such, is unexceptionable. But it is
not clear from the discussion, contained in the two judg-
ments, as to what was the object of the conspiracy. It is
also to be stated that the said two decisions had no
occasion to consider the question whether sanction, under s.
196 (A) (2), Cr.P.C., is still necessary when a trial is
held for offences under s. 120B read with s. 466, 467 and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
420 IPC., and when the case of the prosecution is that the
object of the conspiracy is to commit the offence of
cheating, and non-cognizable offences have been committed
for the purpose of effecting the object of the conspiracy.
We may also point out that our attention has been drawn to
the decision of this Court in Madan Lal v. State of Punjab
(1). We have gone through that decision and it does not, in
our opinion, assist the appellant.
The view of the various High Courts, to which we will refer
presently, and with which view we agree, is that no sanction
is necessary, under s. 196A(2) Cr.P.C., when the object of
the conspiracy is to commit the offence of cheating (420
IPC), but, forgery of documents (467 IPC) and similar non-
cognizable offences are also committed, as merely steps
taken, by one or other of the accused, for the purpose of
effecting the main object of the conspiracy. A trial, under
such circumstances, for offences under s. 120B, read with s.
467/471 and 420 IPC., without obtaining sanction, is neither
illegal, nor void.
It is necessary to keep in mind the difference between the
object of a conspiracy and the means adopted for realising
that object. Even if the object of the conspiracy, viz., of
cheating, is
(1) A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1590.
534
sought to be attained by resort to non-cognizable offences,
as in the case before us, sanction under s. 196A of the Code
is not necessary. This principle emerges from the following
decisions: Ramaohandra Rango v. Emperor(1); Durgadas
Tulsiram v. State(2); Abdul Kadar v. State(3); Paresh Nath
v. Emperor(4); Golam Rahman v. The King(6); Kannan, In
re(6); and Vadlamudi v. State of A.P. (7).
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. On a perusal of the charges, framed against the
appellants, we are satisfied that the only object of the
conspiracy was to cheat the banks or the post offices,
referred to in the charges, which is an offence under S.
420, read with s. 120B, IPC, for which no sanction is
necessary. No doubt there are also charges of committing
forgery Of valuable security and using such forged
documents, which are ,offences under ss.. 467 and 471 IPC,
and non-cognizable. But a reading of the charges, as a
whole, makes it clear that it is not the case of the
prosecution that committing forgery of the Indian and
British postal orders or the cheques, or using such forged
documents, was the object of the conspiracy. The accused
would not he satisfied by merely entering into a conspiracy
to forge the postal orders or the cheques, or even to use
such forged documents. The forging of the documents and
using such forged documents, were only means adopted by the
accused for realising the object, of the conspiracy, which
was to cheat -the postal and bank authorities, at the places
mentioned in the charge, by dishonestly inducing them to
part with money. Therefore the trial of these accused, for
offences under ss. 120B read with S. 467/ 471 and 420 IPC.,
and other allied offences, cannot be held to be illegal, on
the ground that sanction under S. 196A(2) of the Code, had
not been obtained.
Before closing the discussion, on this point, it is
necessary to refer to the reliance placed, by the, counsel
for the appellants, on the acquittal, by the High Court, of
Kapoorchand, on the ground that the trial was void, because
the necessary sanction had not been obtained, under S. 196A,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
of the Code. It will be seen that the said accused also was
tried for an offence under S. 120B read with S. 420 IPC., as
also on certain other charges. As will be seen from the
judgment of the High Court, it has taken the view that the
said accused has not been convicted, by the trial Court, for
an offence, under S. 120B read with S. 420 IPC., and hence
the trial is vitiated, for lack of sanction.
(1)A.I.R. 1939 Bom.129. (2) A.I.R. 1955 Bom. 82.
(2)A.I.R. 1964 Rom.133. (4) A.I.R. 1947 Cal. 32.
(5)A.I.R. 1950 Cal. 66. (6) (1949) 2 M.L.J. Short Notes
(7)A.I.R. 1961 A.P. 448. p. 52 (Crl. M.P. 2686/1949)
535
Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent, has pointed
out that the said accused was also tried for the offence of
cheating, but he was convicted only for certain other
offences; and, in this connection, he referred us to the
finding of the trial Court that all the accused were guilty
of the offence of cheating also. It is not necessary to
pursuematter further, because, it Will be seen from the
judgment of the trial Court that the said accused was also
prosecuted for anoffence under S. 120-B read with S. 420
IPC.
In view of what is stated above, the first contention of the
learned counsel for the appellants, has to be rejected.
So far as the second contention is concerned, that really
relates to merits. Both the learned Sessions Judge, as well
as the High ,Court, have very elaborately gone into the
evidence regarding the appellants, and have found them
guilty of the offences, for which they were punished. We do
not see any error, committed by the High Court, or the
Sessions Judge, in the appreciation of the evidence, in the
case, and there is no justification for any interference, by
this Court.
The result is that the appeal fails, and is dismissed.
G.C. Appeal dismissed.
536