TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 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 Proced....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08 decided by this Court on 17.12.2008 and Anil Kumar Jain vs. State (NCT) of 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 purs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(1) For every distinct offence of which any person is accused there shall be a separate charge, and every such charge shall 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 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gistrate may try all or any number of charges framed against the person together, provided the Magistrate is of the opinion that such person is not likely to be prejudiced thereby. Thus, this 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t and others as witnesses?" 15. This question relates to the applicability of Section 220 of the Cr.P.C. to a case of inducement, allurement and cheating of a large number of investors/ depositors in 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 relia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expression "same transaction" finds mention in Sections 220 and 223 of the Cr.P.C. 19. The meaning of the expression "same transaction" is no longer res- integra. 20. We may first refer to the decision of the 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 sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r instance when No. 2 was sick at the beginning of 1934, they went on ordering fresh consignments of books and disposing of them and pocketing the money for a period of nearly two years until the fraud was discovered in February 1935. Describing 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 ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ges a number of documents. In the present case not only is the common purpose alleged too general and vague but there cannot be said to be any continuity of action between one act of misappropriation and another. Each act of misappropriation was a completed 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, me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hose tickets. But I think that would be obviously impossible. The forging of each particular ticket together with its consequences would be a single transaction. In the present case the line of demarcation between the different transactions is not so clearly cut, but the 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her there are numerous cases of cheating, or there is only one offence and one case. It was contended that many persons may have been induced, but since the act of deception was one i.e. the issuance of the advertisement by the petitioner and his group of companies - even if several persons 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 productio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence is committed, there can be a joint trial. 7. In the present case, different people have alleged to have been defrauded by the respondent and the company and therefore each offence is a distinct one and cannot be regarded as constituting a single series of facts/ transaction....." (emphasis supplied) 29. Thus, in Narinderjit 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad alleged a common and single conspiracy and the modus operandi of the accused persons for withdrawal of huge amounts from the government treasury was, allegedly, the same i.e. by submitting fake allotment letters. 33. This plea of the petitioners/ accused was rejected by the Court. After noticing section 223 of the Code, the learned Single Judge, 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 no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s no continuity of action in the cases at hand as there is no proximity of time, place, money etc., even the modus operandi attached in those cases can be said to be one/same. The order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25150 of 1999 is intact as well as it is specific and lucid to the point which has not been complied with by the petitioners. Thus these applications filed at this belated 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 constit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conspiracy had been framed. This premise does not appear to be correct on a complete reading of Shapurji Sorabji (supra) and in particular on reading of the extracts of the decision quoted hereinabove. Pertinently, the Supreme Court did not observe that the decision in Shapurji Sorabji (supra), was incorrect. The ratio of that decision was not disagreed with. Since the Supreme Court proceeded on the basis that Shapurji 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s only one conspiracy. The only principle this Court laid down is that an accused need not be a member of a conspiracy from its inception but he may join it at a later stage, and that every one of the conspirators need not take part in every incident. If there is one conspiracy, the said circumstances cannot obviously make any difference in the application of s. 239(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this context a decision of an 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 dange....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r some of the offences can legitimately and properly form the subject-matter of a separate trial; such a joint trial would undoubtedly prolong the trial and would be a cause of unnecessary waste of judicial time. It would complicate matters which might otherwise be simple; it would confuse accused and cause prejudice to them, for more often than not accused who have taken part in one of the minor offences might have not only to undergo the long strain of protracted trial, but 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 pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted separate offences were parties to the conspiracy and they committed the separate acts attributed to them pursuant to the object of the conspiracy. 43. Mr. Jain has also placed reliance on Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao (supra). In this decision, the Supreme Court was concerned with Section 239(d) of the Code of 1898 which is para materia to Section 223(d) of the Cr.P.C. Both these provisions read "The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely; ... ... ... persons accused of 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 genera....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld constitute the "same transaction" in every such case. Pertinently, in the same extract, the Supreme Court observed that series of acts which constitute the "same transaction", "must of necessity be connected with one another and if some of them stands out independently, they would not form part of the same transaction but would constitute a different transaction or transactions". In the fact situation that we are concerned with, the transaction entered into by the accused with each of the complainants/ 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. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... members of the public between some of the accused and the aforesaid approvers. *** 7. On behalf of the appellant Abu Bucker it was contended that there has been misjoinder of charges on the ground that several conspiracies, distinct from each other, had been lumped together and tried at one trial. The advocate for Swamirathnam, however, did not put forward this submission. We have examined the charge carefully and find no ground for accepting the contention raised. The charge, as framed, discloses one single conspiracy, 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 Venk....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 of this decision, the Supreme Court observed: "42. ... ... ... Though there was one general charge of conspiracy, which was allied in nature, the charge was qualified with the substantive charge of defalcation of a particular sum from a particular treasury in particular time period. The charge has to be taken in substance for the purpose of defalcation from a particular treasury in a particular financial year exceeding the allocation made for the purpose of animal husbandry on the basis of fake vouchers, fake supply orders, etc. The sanctions 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r separate offences, it would enable the accused person to go scot-free and commit a number of offences which is not the intendment of law. The concept is of "same offence" under Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC. In case distinct offences are being committed there has to be independent trial for each of such offence based on such conspiracy and in the case of misappropriation as statutorily mandated, there should not be joinder of charges in one trial for more than one year except as provided in Section 219. One general conspiracy from 1988 to 1996 has led to various 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 followin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, therefore, faced with a situation where one line of decisions of the Supreme Court indicates that the five circumstances mentioned in Alka Gadia (supra) are exhaustive and another line of decisions of the Supreme Court of benches of equal strength indicates that the said circumstances are illustrative and not exhaustive. This raises the question as to what the High Court is to do in a situation where there is a conflict between decisions of the Supreme Court rendered by Benches of equal strength. In Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad, AIR 1991 All 114, a Full Bench of the High Court 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 Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is a subsisting conflict of opinion of the Supreme Court in S. Swamirathnam (supra) on the one hand, and Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody (supra), Narinderjit Singh Sahni (supra), Rajesh Syal (supra), and Lalu Prasad Vs. State through CBI (A.H.D.) Ranchi, Jharkhand, (supra) on the other hand, it is left to us to decide as to which of the two sets of decisions state the law accurately and elaborately. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the matter, we are of the considered view that the law declared by the Supreme Court in Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody (supra), Narinderjit Singh Sahni (supra), Rajesh Syal (supra), and Lalu Prasad Vs. State through CBI (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 En....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was not proved. Criminal conspiracy as defined in Section 120-A of the IPC is an agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not done by illegal means. The agreement is the gist of the offence. In order to constitute a single general conspiracy there must be a common design and a common intention of all to work in furtherance of the common design. Each conspirator plays his separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose. Each one is aware that he has a part to play in a general conspiracy though he may not know all its secrets or the means by which the common purpose is to be accomplished. The evil scheme 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 g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elevance for our purpose. 58. Mr. Jain has also placed reliance on Ganesh Prasad (supra). In this decision, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court observed: "3. He relies in this connection on Section 235 (Sic 200), Criminal P.C., which provides that for every distinct offence there shall be a separate charge which shall be tried separately. But the answer to the argument is found in the fact that all the persons convicted took part in these occurrences and that Section 235, Criminal P.C., allows acts so connected together as to form the same transaction to be tried together. The question therefore arises as to whether this is substantially the same transaction. I think the definition given 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" sugge....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may not be permissible to cite such other complainants/ victims as witnesses to prove the act of cheating relating to them. Mere citing a large number of complainants/ victims only as witnesses would also deny them the right to file their protest petitions in the eventuality of a closure report being field by the police in respect of the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered, or the Magistrate not accepting the final report/ charge-sheet and discharging the accused. (See Bhagwat Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, AIR 1985 SC 1285). Their right to oppose, or to seek cancellation of bail that the accused may seek in relation to their particular transaction would also be denied. If the accused enters 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 467 IPC. He was convicted and sentences in respect of the six offences. The case against him was that three different persons, seeking to deposit money in the bank, gave certain amounts to him for which he gave receipts in his own handwriting and even forged the signatures of the Manager of the bank. However, he embezzled the amounts. 66. The primary question which arose before the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court was whether the trial of the accused at one trial in respect of those offences was illegal in view of Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which lays down (like in Section 218 of the Cr.P.C.), that there shall be a separate charge for every distinct offence and that every such 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 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was restricted to three offences, although there were two similar transactions in each of which two similar offences had been committed, and the accused has been committed for trial in respect of all four offences. To hold that Section 234 covered all offences, committed in the course of three similar but separate transactions when the number of offences was more than three, would, in my opinion, be straining the language of the section beyond all bounds, Even in the trial of Bal Gangadhar Tilak 33 B. 221 : 10 Bom. L.R. 973 : 9 Cri. L.J. 226 : 4 M.L.T. 45 : 2 Ind. Cas. 277 the Bombay Court did not go to this extent, and, in my opinion, the trial of the present appellant in respect of six offences, three of embezzlement and three of forgery, 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, th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C. and as per the same, the offenses are of the same kind when they are punishable with the same amount of punishment under the same section of the Indian Penal Code or of any special or local law. 12. In the present case, the offences being of the same kind are punishable with the same amount of punishment. The offences being of the same kind having been committed within one year, only three offences of the same year could be joined. In the case in hand, a composite report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. has been submitted by the prosecution agency though in adherence to the provisions of Section 219(1) of Cr.P.C., the report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was required to comprise only three offences. A single challan containing the commission of 177 offences 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) 7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the observation made in paragraph 14 of K.Manoj Reddy (supra) records the legal position more accurately than Chaman Lal Sankhla (supra). 78. The Investigating Agency/ Police is not authorized either to charge, or to try the accused and the same is a judicial function. Thus, the Investigating Agency/ Police cannot amalgamate the separate offences investigated under separate FIRs, into one charge sheet. 79. Mr. Jain had also argued that after registration of a single FIR in relation to commission of multiple offences arising from the same conspiracy, and after filing of the Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the police could file supplementary/ further charge sheets under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in respect of each of the victims. We do not agree with this submission, firstly, for the 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 com....