TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 1289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts office at Bhubaneswar. The information further revealed that aforesaid B.L. Bajaj was acting as a middleman for A.K. Srivastava for arranging bribe money by corrupt and illegal methods from the bidders/suppliers of NALCO and was handing over the same to Mr.A.K. Srivastava. 4. According to the information, aforesaid B.L. Bajaj was in close contact with Gurvinder Singh Bhatia, Chairman cum Managing Director of Bhatia Group of companies which had its corporate office at Indore. The aforesaid firm was engaged in trading of imported and indigenous coal with various private companies and PSUs through its sister companies, viz. M/s. Bhatia International Ltd. and Bhatia Coal Sales Ltd., having their offices at Indore. It was informed that B.L. Bajaj, for obtaining favours for Bhatia group of companies, obtained huge sum of money as illegal gratification on behalf of A.K. Srivastava from G.S. Bhatia and under instructions from A.K. Srivastava, converted the illegal gratification into gold for delivering it to him. Gold was purchased from Triputi Jewellers, Noida for the aforesaid purpose. When the jeweller informed Mr.B.L. Bajaj for delivery of gold at his residence, he was instructed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agreement and locker operation register were found to be of Anita Bajaj in the handwriting of Chandni Srivastava. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence collected during the investigation, charge sheet No. 3/2011 dated 20.04.2011 was filed against A.K. Srivatava, B.L. Bajaj, Chandni Srivastava, Anita Bajaj, G.S. Bhatia, Jaswinder Singh Bhatia and Sh.Ratan Pal Singh Bhatia under Section 120B read with Sections 7 & 12 of the P.C. Act, 1988. 10. Further investigations in the matter was conducted in order to establish the role of other accused persons as well as the source of some of the gold bars which were recovered. 11. A separate charge sheet was submitted for conspiracy to obtain and operate a benami locker by Smt. Chandni Srivastava (petitioner) vide charge sheet No. 4/2011 which was also submitted on the same date. The contents of charge sheet No. 4/2011 referred to above, reveal that materials were available for trying A.K. Srivastava, B.L. Bajaj, Chandni Srivastava and Anita Bajaj for commission of offence under Sections 419/466/471 and 474 of the IPC. 12. Thus it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after the registration of the FIR No. RC/AC-1/2011/A0001, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orged documents for opening up a locker in a bank was not at all part of the same transaction whereby bribe money was obtained and converted into gold. Separate set of accused persons were sent up for trial in the aforesaid two charge sheets and the offences also were of a different genre. Similar opposition to the prayer of the petitioner was made by respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7, namely that the charge sheets were in relation to different accused persons, the offences charged in both the charge sheets were of different nature and should the charge sheets No. 3/2011 and 4/2011 be amalgamated/consolidated, the rights of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 with respect to their first appeal before the Court of Session would be lost/truncated, causing prejudice to them. 15. The learned Court below, after discussing the facts of the case and the two charge sheets, held that the accused persons who are not common in both the charge sheets, would be prejudiced in case of a joint trial as they would lose the right of appeal before the Sessions Judge as the offence for which they have been charge sheeted would be tried by a Court of Magistrate whereas for P.C. Act, the trial would be held by the Special C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded 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, and that an offence punishable under any section of the said Code, or of any special or local law, shall be deemed to be an offence of the same kind as an attempt to commit such offence, when such an attempt is an offence. Section 223. What persons may be charged jointly. The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely:- (a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction; (b) person accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence; (c) person accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the meaning of section 219 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months; (d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction; (e) persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion, cheating, or criminal misappropriation, and persons accused of receiving or retaining, or assisting in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operating register, were found to be in the name of Anita Bajaj but the signature was in the handwriting of Chandni Srivastava. Thus, even the purpose of impersonation and using of forged documents as genuine for opening of the locker in a bank by the wives of two accused persons, namely B.L. Bajaj and A.K. Srivastava, was part of the same conspiracy and was executed for facilitating the stashing of the bribe money, converted into gold and other tangible forms. 20. The following facts raise a presumption about the offences described in two different charge sheets being part of the same transaction:- (i) The two charge sheets have been filed after investigation of one FIR namely RC/AC-1/2011/A0001; (ii) The trap in the bank was laid on the same day of the registration of the FIR; (iii) Four of the accused persons are common in both the charge sheets; (iv) Majority of the documents and witnesses are common in both the charge sheets. 21. Thus, if two trial are conducted with respect to the aforesaid two charge sheets, it might lead to conflicting judgments. There would be another danger of the evidence and material in one case being made known to the witnesses and accused in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 transaction. The connection between a series of acts seems to us to be an essential ingredient for those acts to constitute the same transaction and therefore, the mere absence of the words "so connected together as to form" in cls. (a), (c) (sic) and (d) of S. 239 would make little difference." 24. In Mohan Baitha vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 1490, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 220 of the Code and observed as hereunder:- "It may be noticed that under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences more than one committed by the same persons could be tried at one trial, if they can be held to be in one series of acts, so as to form the same transaction. The expression "same transaction" from its very nature is incapable of an exact definition. It is not intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical sense. Common sense and the ordinary use of language must decide whether on the facts of a particular case, it can be held to be in one transaction. It is not possible to enunciate any comprehensive formula of universal applic....