TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... number of investors/ depositors in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy, each deposit by an investor constitutes a separate and individual transaction or all such transactions can be amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing one investor as complainant and others as witnesses? b. If in case the Hon'ble Court concludes that each deposit has to be treated as separate transaction, then how many such transactions can be amalgamated into one charge- sheet? (Note: - As per the provisions of section 219 Cr.PC. and as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni & Anr. Vs. Union of India &Ors. Only three transactions in a particular year can be clubbed in a single charge- sheet). c. Whether under the given circumstances the concept of maximum punishment of seven years for a single offence can be pressed into service by the accused by clubbing and amalgamating all the transactions into one FIR with maximum punishment of seven years? (Note: - If this is done, this would be in violation of concept of Proportionality of Punishment as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of Narinderjit Singh Sahni vs. Union of India &Ors. i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Delhi, W.P.(CRL) No.1486/2010 decided by this Court on 10.02.2011. She has referred to the following decisions of other High Courts as well on the issue: i) Decision of the Jharkand High Court in Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State through CBI, 2003 Cr LJ 610; ii) Decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in N.K. Garg v. U.T. Chandigarh, 2003 (3) Cri CC 550; iii) Decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K. Manoj Reddy v. Commissioner of Police, 2008 Cr LJ 768. 5. She was also of the, prima facie, view that the registration of a single FIR and filing of a single charge sheet appeared to be contrary to the statutory provisions and scheme contained in Section 218, 219, 220, 221 and 222 Cr.P.C., and appeared to be illogical and opposed to the concept of proportionality of punishment enshrined in the Cr.P.C. 6. In this regard, she sought a response from the EOW, Delhi Police. The DCP Economic Offences Wing, Delhi submitted that only a single FIR is required to be registered in the present case, because all investors/ depositors were allegedly cheated in pursuance of a single conspiracy, constituting a single transaction and as such, the commission of multiple acts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be tried separately: Provided that where the accused person, by an application in writing, so desires and the Magistrate is of opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby, the Magistrate may try together all or any number of the charges framed against such person. (2) Nothing in sub- section (1) shall affect the operation of the provisions of sections 219, 220, 221 and 223. 219. Three offences of same kind within year may be charged together.-(1) When a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. (2) Offences are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ) or of any special or local law: Provided that, for the purposes of this section, an offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an offence punishable under section 380 of the said Code,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his exceptional course of action may be adopted only upon the accused making an application therefor, and upon the Magistrate forming the opinion that trial of all or some of the charges together would not prejudice the accused. Sub-Section (2) makes it clear that sub-Section (1) shall not affect the operation of Sections 219, 220, 221 & 223, meaning thereby, that the said sections would apply irrespective of: (a) the mandate of sub-Section (1) - that for every distinct offence, of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately, and; (b) the order that the Magistrate may pass under proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 218 of the Cr.P.C. 12. Sections 219 and 220 deal with different aspects of the matter. For attracting Section 219, the necessary circumstance is that the same person is accused of more offences than one; the offences of which the person is accused are of the same kind; they are committed in a space of 12 months from the first and the last of such offences, and; the said offences may, or may not, be in respect of the same person. The offences need not have any causal connection between them for Section 21....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a criminal conspiracy. The issue posed is whether the offence of cheating - by acceptance of deposits made by individual investors - and there would be multiple such investors, would all constitute the "same transaction" - because the conspiracy or design may be the same or, whether, the act of cheating - by acceptance of deposits made by different investors, would constitute separate transactions - because each act of inducement, allurement and consequential cheating would be unique. The question is whether such transactions could be amalgamated and clubbed together into a single FIR, by showing one investor as the complainant, and the others as the witnesses. 16. Mr. Hariharan, ld. Amicus Curiae, has submitted that each case of inducement, allurement and cheating of an investor constitutes a separate transaction, mandating registration of a separate FIR for each such transaction. On the aspect as to what forms the "same transaction", or a "separate transaction", he places reliance on elaborate analysis of the law contained in Shapurji Sorabji v. Emperor, AIR 1936 Bom 154. He further submits that the Supreme Court decision in Narinderjit Singh Sahni (supra) has conclusively settl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Shapurji Sorabji (supra), wherein the issue arose whether the acts of the accused formed part of the "same transaction" - as contended by the prosecution, to justify the framing of a common charge and conduct of one trial (by resort to Section 235 of the Code of 1898, which is similar to Section 220 of the Cr.P.C.) or, "separate transaction" - as contended by the accused, who alleged misjoinder of four different charges extending over a period of nearly two years, thereby contravening Section 233 of the Code of 1898 (similar to Section 218 of the Cr.P.C.). In this case, the accused had allegedly got multiple spurious ticket books printed. The accused allegedly sold these spurious tickets - got printed on several occasions, and misappropriated the sale proceeds, thereby allegedly committing offences of criminal breach of trust, forgery, use of forged tickets as genuine knowingly, and of cheating. While determining whether the said transactions constituted "same transaction" or "separate transaction", the Division Bench observed: " ........Charges in respect of the total number of alleged forgeries extending over this period could only ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....escribing that state of affairs in ordinary language, I think one would call it not one transaction but a, series of transactions. All the offences committed in connection with any one consignment of books, forgery, misappropriation, cheating and so on, would no doubt be part of the same transaction; but the offences committed in connection with any other consignment of books would in my opinion not be part of the same but of a similar transaction. 7. As the section itself says, in order that a series of acts be regarded as the same transaction, they must be connected together in some way. The Courts have indicated various tests to be employed to decide whether different acts are part of the same transaction or not, namely, proximity of time, unity of place, unity or community of purpose or design and continuity of action. There are numerous cases on this point. I need only refer to Choragudi Venkatadri v. Emperor, [(1910) 33 Mad. 502.] a case which has been frequently followed, Mallayya v. King-Emperor, [(1924) 49 Mad. 74.] and Emperor v. Sherufalli [(1902) 27 Bom. 135.]. Proximity of time is not essential, though it often furnishes good evidence of what unites several acts into....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpleted act in itself and the original design to make money was accomplished so far as the particular sum of money was concerned, when the misappropriation took place." 8. That was a case in which it was alleged that a company was formed with the object of defrauding the public in a particular manner and the promoters of the company were charged with several distinct acts of embezzlement committed in the course of several years. These acts were all committed in prosecution of the general object for which the company was founded. But it was held nevertheless that they were not parts of the same transaction and could not be joined in the same charge. The ratio decidendi of the judgments in this case appears to me to apply very closely to the facts of the present case. 9. It seems, therefore, that the main test must really be continuity of action. We have to consider what that expression means. It cannot mean, I think, merely doing the same thing or similar things continuously or repeatedly, for a recurring series of similar transactions is not, according to the ordinary use of language, the same transaction. Continuity of action in the context must, in my opinion, mean this: the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... principle seems to me to be the same." (emphasis supplied) 22. Accordingly, for a series of acts to be regarded as forming the "same transaction", they must be connected together in some way, and there should be continuity of action. Though: (i) proximity of time; (ii) unity of place; and, (iii) unity or community of purpose or design have been taken into account to determine the issue viz. whether the series of acts constitute the "same transaction", or not, neither of them is an essential ingredient, and the presence or absence of one or more of them, would not be determinative of the issue, which has to be decided by adoption of a common sense approach in the facts of a given case. In Shapurji Sorabji (supra), the expression "continuity of action" was explained by the Division Bench as "the following up of some initial act through all its consequences and incidents until the series of acts or group of connected acts comes to an end, either by attainment of the object or by being put an end to or abandoned. If any of those things happens and the whole process is begun over again, it is not the same transaction but a new one, in spite of the fact that the same general purpose ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsons stood cheated, it was a single offence. 26. On behalf of the State, it was contended that each act of cheating constitutes a separate offence, and the attempt on behalf of the accused to say that only one advertisement had resulted into multitude of consequential deprivation of property to the thousands of investors was an endeavor to mislead the court. 27. The bench of 3 Learned Judges of the Supreme Court held: "57. ......In a country like ours, if an accused is alleged to have deceived millions of countrymen, who have invested their entire life's saving in such fictitious and frivolous companies promoted by the accused and when thousands of cases are pending against an accused in different parts of the country, can an accused at all complain of infraction of Article 21, on the ground that he is not being able to be released out of jail custody in view of different production warrants issued by different courts. Issuance of production warrants by the court and the production of accused in the court, in cases where he is involved is a procedure established by law and consequently, the accused cannot be permitted to make a complaint of infraction of his rights under A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rinderjit Singh Sahni (supra) and in Rajesh Syal (supra), a similar submission - as advanced by Mr. Jain, that the series of acts were so connected together as to form the "same transaction", and that even where more than one offence is committed, there could be a joint trial, was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in clear terms, stated that each offence is a distinct one, and cannot be regarded as constituting a single series of acts/transaction. 30. We may now refer to the decisions of learned Single Judges of this Court and other High Courts, placed before us. In Mohd. Shakeel (supra), the two petitioners were accused of being involved in serial blasts which rocked the capital city on 13.09.2008 at five prime commercial locations. The petitioners had assailed the order passed by the learned CMM granting police remand of the accused in case FIR No. 418/2008. The accused had earlier been sent to police remand in two FIR Nos.130/2008 and 166/2008, which were also registered in relation to the said serial blasts. One of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners/ accused was that since there was commonality of purpose and design, and since the acts of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge, inter alia, observed: "19. It may be noted here that the provision of joint trial is an enabling one as the said section itself provides that the Court may charge and try the accused jointly. Therefore, it is not incumbent or obligatory for the Court to try the cases jointly even if the offences committed by one or the other accused persons are part of the same transaction. Thus whether there should be a joint or separate trial depends upon the discretion of the Presiding Officer who is competent enough to be satisfied about the entire circumstances depending upon the legal provisions. Here the only provision of Section 223, Clause (d) is attracted which provides that the persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together". 34. The learned Single Judge noticed a decision of the Supreme Court in Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao (supra), as also the circumstance that huge amounts of withdrawal had been made from different treasuries, and the period of withdrawal was also different spanning between 1990-1996. Though the modus operandi of the accused might have been the same for withdrawing amounts from the governmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d stage having no merit and are liable to be dismissed." (emphasis supplied) 35. In K. Manoj Reddy (supra) the petitioner, having received certain initial deposit and installments from different investors, breached the contract and refused to register plots in the name of those investors. Separate FIR‟s were registered against the accused persons for cheating, which was under challenge before the learned single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The single judge held: "12. In a case of this nature where financial scams have been committed in the course of selling the plots, all the particulars i.e., the date of purchase, mode of payment and the customers, will be different and distinct. Therefore, I am of the opinion that each and every written complaint of a subscriber constitutes an offence." (emphasis supplied) 36. We may now deal with the decisions relied upon by Mr. jain on behalf of the State/ Delhi Police. 37. S. Swamirathnam (supra) is a decision of 3 learned Judges of the Supreme Court. This judgment was authored by Syed Jafer Imam, J. In paragraph 7 of this decision, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "7. On behalf of the appellant Abu Bucker i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apurji Sorabji (supra) was a case which did not involve a charge of conspiracy, the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Swamirathnam (supra) has to be read and understood in the context of the said fact. 40. Secondly, and even more importantly, in another 3-Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody Vs. State of Bombay, 1964 Mah LJ 1 : 1961 SCC OnLine SC 1, the Supreme Court has made observations which clearly have the effect of diluting, if not completely nullifying, the precedential value of the decision in S. Swamirathnam (supra). It is interesting to note that S. Swamirathnam (supra) was authored by Syed Jafer Imam, J. - while sitting as a puisne judge. However, in Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody (supra), Syed Jafer Imam, J. was heading the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, and the said decision has been authored by K. Subbarao, J., for the Court. In Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody (supra), the Supreme Court while dealing with S. Swamirathnam (supra) observed as follows: "13. This Court in S. Swaminathnam v. State of Madras [1957] A.I.R. S.C. 340 again considered the question of the propriety of framing a charge of conspiracy in the peculiar circumstances of that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... English Court is rather instructive and that is in R. v. Dawson,(1960) 1 All ER 558. In that ease, an indictment on which two appellants were charged with other accused included fifteen counts. Fourteen of these charged various fraudulent offences on dates in and between 1955 and 1957. The first count charged conspiracy to defraud between November 1, 1954 and December 31, 1957. The transactions which were the subject of the other fourteen charges were within the purview of the conspiracy charge. Both the appellants were convicted on the conspiracy charge and one of the appellants was convicted also on other counts. On appeal, Finnemore, J., made the following weighty observations (p.563): "...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 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 substa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there might also be the likelihood of the impact of the evidence adduced in respect of other accused on the evidence adduced against him working to his detriment. Nor can it be said that such an omnibus charge or charges would always be in favour of the prosecution for the confusion introduced in the charges and consequently in the evidence may ultimately benefit some of the accused, as a clear case against one or other of the accused may be complicated or confused by the attempt to put it in a proper place in a larger setting. A Court should not be overzealous to provide a cover of conspiracy for a number of offences unless it is clearly satisfied on the material placed before it that there is evidence to prove prima facie that the persons who committed separate offences were parties to the conspiracy and they committed the separate acts attributed to them pursuant to the object of the said conspiracy." (emphasis supplied) 41. From the above extract, it would be seen that, firstly, the Supreme Court observed that S. Swamirathnam (supra) was decided "in the peculiar circumstances of that case". Thus, this itself denudes S. Swamirathnam (supra) of its precedential value, since th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... different offences committed in the course of the same transaction;". The Supreme Court in this decision, inter alia, observed: "25. ... ... ... What is meant by "same transaction" is not defined anywhere in the Code. Indeed, it would always be difficult to define precisely what the expression means. Whether a transaction can be regarded as the same would necessarily depend upon the particular facts of each case and it seems to us to be a difficult task to undertake a definition of that which the Legislature has deliberately left undefined. We have not come across a single decision of any Court which has embarked upon the difficult task of defining the expression. But it is generally thought that where there is proximity of time or place or unity of purpose and design or continuity of action in respect of a series of acts, it may be possible to infer that they form part of the same transaction. It is, however, not necessary that every one of these elements should co-exist for a transaction to be regarded as the same. But if several acts committed by a person show a unity of purpose or design that would be a strong circumstance to indicate that those acts form part of the same tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... victims stand out independently, and it cannot be said that the specific transaction entered into with one of the complainants/ victims is necessarily connected with all other similar transactions. Thus, the decision in Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao (supra) supports the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae rather than supporting the submission of Mr. Jain. 45. Mr. Jain has also placed reliance on State of Jharkhand Through S.P., Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Lalu Prasad Yadav Alias Lalu Prasad, (2017) 8 SCC 1. This is a decision of two learned Judges the Supreme Court. He specifically relies upon paragraphs 43 & 44 of this decision, which read as follows: "43. The learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in S. Swamirathnam [S. Swamirathnam v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 340 : 1957 Cri LJ 422] in which the charge disclosed one single conspiracy, although spread over several years. There was only one object of the conspiracy, and that was cheating members of the public. The fact that in the course of years others joined the conspiracy or that several incidents of cheating took place in pursuance of the conspiracy, does not change the conspiracy and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onspiracy, although spread over several years. There was only one object of the conspiracy and that was to cheat members of the public. The fact that in the course of years others joined the conspiracy or that several incidents of cheating took place in pursuance of the conspiracy did not change the conspiracy and did not spilt up a single conspiracy into several conspiracies. It was suggested that although the modus operandi may have been the same, the several instances of cheating were not part of the same transaction. Reliance was placed on Shapurji Sorabji v. Emperor [Shapurji Sorabji v. Emperor, 1935 SCC OnLine Bom 57 : AIR 1936 Bom 154] and on Choragudi Venkatadri v. Emperor [Choragudi Venkatadri v. Emperor, ILR (1910) 33 Mad 502] . These cases are not in point. In the Bombay case [Shapurji Sorabji v. Emperor, 1935 SCC OnLine Bom 57 : AIR 1936 Bom 154] no charge of conspiracy had been framed and the decision in the Madras case [Choragudi Venkatadri v. Emperor, ILR (1910) 33 Mad 502] was given before Section 120-B was introduced into the Penal Code, 1860. In the present case, the instances of cheating were in pursuance of the conspiracy and were therefore parts of the same tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctions made in Budget were separate for each and every year. This Court has already dealt with this matter when the prayers for amalgamation and joint trial had been made and in view of the position of law and various provisions discussed above, we are of the opinion that separate trials which are being made are in accordance with the provisions of law otherwise it would have prejudiced the accused persons considering the different defalcations from different treasuries at different times with different documents. Whatever could be combined has already been done. Each defalcation would constitute an independent offence. Thus, by no stretch, it can be held to be in violation of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 CrPC. Separate trials in such cases is the very intendment of law. There is no room to raise such a grievance. Though evidence of general conspiracy has been adduced in cases which have been concluded, it may be common to all the cases but at the same time offences are different at different places, by different accused persons. As and when a separate offence is committed, it becomes punishable and the substantive charge which has to be taken is that of the off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rious offences as such there have to be different trials for each of such offence based upon conspiracy in which different persons have participated at different times at different places for completion of the offence. Whatever could be combined has already been done. Thus we find no merit in the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused persons." (emphasis supplied) 50. A similar submission on behalf of the appellant in Lalu Prasad Vs. State through CBI (A.H.D.) Ranchi, Jharkhand, (2003) 11 SCC 786, was rejected by a three judge bench of the Supreme Court in the following manner: "11. ... ... ... Thus it has already been held, by a three-Judge Bench of this Court, that the main offences were under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has been held that the offence of conspiracy is an allied offence to the main offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The cases are before the Special Judges because the main offences are under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The main offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act in each case is in respect of the alleged transaction in that case. As conspiracy is only an allied offence, it canno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Allahabad considered this very question. The Full Bench observed as under:-- "7. One line of decision is that if there is a conflict in two Supreme Court decisions, the decision which is later in point of time would be binding on the High Courts. The second line of decisions is that in case there is a conflict between the judgments of Supreme Court consisting of equal authorities, incidence of time is not a relevant factor and the High Court must follow the judgment which appears it to lay down law elaborately and accurately." 20. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court referred to a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Indo Swiss Time Limited, Dundahera v. Umrao, AIR 1981 P&H 213, wherein it was observed as under:-- "Now the contention that the latest judgment of a co-ordinate Bench is to be mechanically followed and must have pre-eminence irrespective of any other consideration does not commend itself to me. When judgments of the superior Court are of co-equal Benches and therefore, of matching authority then their weight inevitably must be considered by the rationale and the logic thereof and not by the mere fortuitous circumstances....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I (A.H.D.) Ranchi, Jharkhand, (supra) is a more accurate and elaborate enunciation of the law. This is for the reason that while deciding S. Swamirathnam (supra), it did not fall for consideration by the Supreme Court that conspiracy is an allied offence, whereas the acts committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, which eventually led to commission of specific offences, are the substantive and main offences. We also find that in Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody (supra), the Supreme Court noticed with approval the legal position as prevalent in the English Courts even prior to the decision in S. Swamirathnam (supra) was delivered. In Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody (supra), the Supreme Court quoted, with approval, the decision in R. Vs. Dawson (supra). Even subsequently, the Supreme Court on several occasions, while noticing S. Swamirathnam (supra), did not invoke the said decision. We are also of the view that the enunciation of the law contained in Shapurji Sorabji (supra) is most elaborate, and we find ourselves in agreement to the said view. Thus, we reject the reliance placed by Mr. Jain on S. Swamirathnam (supra). 53. We find that the decision in Ramesh Chand Kapoor (supra) - decided by a lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e may be promoted by a few, some may drop out and some may join at a later stage, but the conspiracy continues until it is broken up. The conspiracy may develop in successive stages. There may be a general plan to accomplish the common design by such means as may from time to time be found expedient. New techniques may be invented and new means may be devised for advancement of the common plan. A general conspiracy must be distinguished from a number of separate conspiracies having a similar general purpose. Where different groups of persons cooperate towards their separate ends without any privity with each other, each combination constitutes a separate conspiracy. The common intention of the conspirators then is to work for the furtherance of the common design of his group only. The cases illustrate the distinction between a single general conspiracy and a number of unrelated conspiracies. In S.K. Khetwani v. State of Maharashtra [(1967) 1 SCR 595] and S. Swaminathan v. State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 340] the Court found a single general conspiracy while in R. v. Griffiths [(1962) 2 All ER 448] the Court found a number of unrelated, separate, conspiracies." 56. The aforesaid extra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by Batty, J., in the case of Emperor v. Datto Hanmant Shahapurkar [1906] 30 Bom. 49 is correct. The section under construction in that case was Section 239, sub-clause (a), using the expression "in the course of the same transaction"; and it appears to me that the definition of the expression "transaction" in the one section will equally apply to the expression "the same transaction" in Section 235. During the course of the judgment it was stated that "the same transaction" suggests not necessarily proximity in time so much as continuity of action and purpose; and in my judgment for the purpose of this case that definition is the correct interpretation of the expression "the same transaction". (emphasis supplied) 59. This decision, in our view, is of no avail to Mr. Jain. All that this decision observes - on the basis of the earlier decision in Datto Hanmant Shahapurkar (supra), is that the "same transaction" suggests, not necessarily, proximity in time so much as continuity of action and purpose. As noticed above, continuity in action is an important test and when the same is applied, that we find that the continuity in action ends in respect of each act of cheating, when that a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... into a settlement/ compromise with the complainant on whose complaint the FIR stands registered, and he chooses not to diligently participate in the trial, the complaints of other victims may go unaddressed. Thus, the practice adopted by the State/ Delhi Police, and which is sought to be defended by them, is clearly erroneous and not sustainable in law 61. Mr. Jain has also drawn our attention to Section 180 Cr.P.C. However, the same is completely irrelevant in the present context, since that Section deals with the aspect of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court which may inquire into or try the offence. 62. Thus, our answer to Question (a) is that in a case of inducement, allurement and cheating of large number of investors/ depositors in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy, each deposit by an investor constitutes a separate and individual transaction. All such transactions cannot be amalgamated and clubbed into a single FIR by showing one investor as the complainant, and others as witnesses. In respect of each such transaction, it is imperative for the State to register a separate FIR if the complainant discloses commission of a cognizable offence. 63. We may now turn to q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charge shall be tried separately, except in cases mentioned in Sections 234,235,263 and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898(which are similar to Sections 219, 220,221,223 of the Cr.P.C.). 67. Section 234 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (similar to Section 219 of the Cr.P.C.) and lays down that when a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months from the first to the last of such offences, whether in respect of the same person or not, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three. Offences are of the same kind, when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the IPC, or of any special or local laws. 68. The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court held that the trial of the appellant/ accused in respect of those offences at one and the same trial - though committed within a space of 12 months, contravened Section 233, read with Section 234, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 69. The learned Single Judge rejected the submission on behalf of the respondent/ Emperor that the expression "three offences" should be u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is an illegality, as was laid down in the case of Subrahmania Ayyar v. King-Emperor" 70. No doubt, the aforesaid decision cited by Mr. Hariharan supports his submission, but we may observe that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge was a prima facie view. 71. Mr. Hariharan has also placed reliance on Chaman Lal Sankhla v. State of Haryana (2008 CriLJ 2640: 2008 SCC OnLine P&H 207), decided by learned Single Judge. In this case, the petitioner/ accused was alleged to have issued 177 driving licenses without following the procedure prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder. FIR 26/2001 was registered against him and another co accused under Sections 218, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The charge sheet was filed on 15.04.2002 under the aforesaid provisions. The accused were discharged under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned CJM charged the petitioner under Section 218,420,467,468 IPC while discharging him under Sections 471 and 120B IPC. The learned ASJ, Gurgaon vide his order dated 26.09.2006, passed in revision proceedings, held that issuanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the same kind has been filed, which is quite contrary to the spirit of Section 219(1) of Cr.P.C. Sequelly, there is nothing wrong with the observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned order. 13. In view of the above discussion, the provisions of Section 220 of Cr.P.C. are not attracted to the case in hand. The first poser is accordingly answered." (emphasis supplied) 74. Mr. Hariharan has also placed reliance on K.Manoj Reddy (supra) notice whereof has been taken hereinabove. In this decision, the learned Single Judge of the Andhara Pradesh High Court, inter alia, observed: "14. Therefore, after completing investigation and after filing charge sheet, three cases can be clubbed together and tried under Section 219 Criminal Procedure Code, but it does not mean that all the crimes in question, can be construed as one offence by registering one comprehensive crime." 75. On the aforesaid question (b), the only submission advanced by Mr. Jain is the one advanced in relation to question (a) i.e. that of acts of cheating under a single conspiracy constitute the "same transaction". He further submitted that question (b), as framed by the leaned AS....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e reason that to begin with, a single FIR cannot be registered in respect of separate cognizable offences which do not form the same transaction. Secondly, the supplementary/ further charge sheet under Section 173(8) relates to the cognizable offence in respect whereof the FIR is registered and, therefore, cannot relate to specific offences in respect of which the victim is other than the complainant on whose complaint the FIR is registered. 80. Thus, our answer to question (b) is that in respect of each FIR, a separate final report (and wherever necessary supplementary/ further charge sheet(s)) have to be filed, and there is no question of amalgamation of the final reports that may be filed in respect of different FIRs. The amalgamation, strictly in terms of Section 219 Cr.P.C., would be considered by the Court/ Magistrate at the stage of framing of charge, since Section 219(1) mandates that where the requirements set out in the said Section are met, the accused "may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, any number of them not exceeding three" 81. We may now proceed to answer question (c), which read as follows: "c. Whether under the given circumstances the concept of m....