TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acy, 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 CrPC 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., it has been observed by the Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y sub-section 2 of Section 31 of the Cr.P.C., but the same would apply in respect of convictions at one trial of two or more offences. However, where the trials are multiple, which result into multiple convictions, the proviso to Section 31 (2) would have no application.' 4. The State filed the present appeal assailing these answers. By order dated 25.11.2019, this Court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment. Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel, was requested to assist the Court as an amicus curiae. Despite service of notice, Khimji Bhai Jadeja, the respondent, did not enter appearance before this Court. 5. The reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge arose in the context of FIR No. 89 of 2009 registered on 01.06.2009 by the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [For short, 'IPC'], at the behest of one Rajesh Kumar. His complaint was that Ashok Jadeja and his accomplices, one of whom was Khimji Bhai Jadeja, the respondent herein, had falsely represented that Ashok Jadeja was blessed with the divine power of Sikotar Mata to triple money in a few days. A large number of people were stated to hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant-State, would contend that a conspiracy to procure deposits from several persons so as to dupe them would be a 'single transaction', irrespective of the number of people defrauded and each such transaction ought not to be treated as a separate offence, requiring an individual FIR to be registered therefor. She would argue that clubbing of FIRs is permissible in law and that requiring individual FIRs to be registered in a case of this nature would be cumbersome and wholly unnecessary. She would point out that the statute provides for charges being consolidated against multiple persons for multiple offences, if such offences form part of the same transaction. Reliance is placed upon State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and another - AIR 1963 SC 1850 = (1964) 3 SCR 297, wherein this Court observed thus: "where 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 transaction." She would argue that the acts of the accused persons in the case on hand also constitute a 'single transaction', justifying the clubbing of all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this Court rejected the contention of the accused that there was misjoinder of charges as several conspiracies, distinct from each other, had been lumped together and tried at one trial. The Bench observed that the charges, as framed, disclosed one single conspiracy spread over several years and the only object of the conspiracy was to cheat members of the public. Per the Bench, the mere fact that others joined in the conspiracy in the course of those years or the fact that several incidents of cheating took place pursuant to the conspiracy did not change the conspiracy or split it up into several conspiracies. It was held that the instances of cheating were in pursuance of one conspiracy and were, therefore, parts of the same transaction. 10. In Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala and others vs. Union of India and another- AIR 1963 SC 1620 = 1963 Supp (2) SCR 338, this Court dealt with the question as to what is meant by 'every distinct offence'. It was held that 'distinct' meant 'not identical' and two offences would be distinct if they are not, in any way, inter-related. It was further held that if there is some inter-relation, there would be no distinctness and it would depend upon the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccused are punished separately for each offence committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. It was pointed out if there is only one trial for such a conspiracy, in spite of separate offences being committed, it would enable the accused to go scot-free, despite committing a number of offences, which is not the intendment of law. 13. In Amish Devgan vs. Union of India and others- (2021) 1 SCC 1, seven FIRs came to be registered in the States of Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Telangana and Uttar Pradesh in relation to a television telecast, which formed the basis for the offences alleged. Applying the law laid down in T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala and others- (2001) 6 SCC 181, which was followed thereafter in Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs. Union of India and others- (2020) 14 SCC 12, this Court directed the clubbing of the FIRs. It was observed that, when the subject matter of the FIRs is the same incident or occurrence or is in regard to incidents, which are two or more parts of the same transaction, then a separate and second FIR need not be proceeded with. It was observed that, in terms of the law laid down in T.T. Antony (supra), the subsequent FIRs would be treated as statements under Se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd others- (2023) 14 SCC 801, following the ratio decidendi in Amish Devgan (supra), this Court exercised power under Article 142 of the Constitution and consolidated six FIRs registered in the State to be tried together, as multiplicity of proceedings would not be in the larger public interest or in the interest of the State. Again, in Ravinder Singh Sidhu vs. State of Punjab and others- 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1164, this Court observed that it is now fairly well settled that multiplicity of proceedings would not be in the larger public interest and the correct course of action would be to merge the later FIRs with the earliest FIR with the State's consent. On the same lines, in Alok Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others- 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1728, this Court noted that 81 FIRs were registered and directed the first FIR to be treated as the main FIR and all other FIRs to be treated as statements under Section 161 CrPC. Earlier, in Satinder Singh Bhasin vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another- (2023) 14 SCC 805, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court followed the principle enunciated in Amish Devgan (supra) and clubbed, with consent, the 118 FIRs relating to the Bike Bot scheme registered across the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or case law in the context of commission of offences in the course of the same transaction, whereby persons accused of multiple offences committed in the course of that same transaction could be charged and tried together. In any event, the development of law on the point, referred to hereinabove, including later decisions of 3-Judge Benches, is indicative of the legal position prevailing as on date. The above referred judgments sum up the legal position adequately and we see no purpose in burdening this decision with more case law on the point. 19. We may note that Section 218(1) CrPC requires a distinct and separate charge for every distinct offence and each such separate charge should be tried separately. Sections 219 to 223 CrPC constitute exceptions to this general rule and stipulate the circumstances in which deviation therefrom can be made. Under Section 219 CrPC, three such offences committed during a year can be the subject matter of a single trial [now, five such offences, under Section 242 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)]. Under Sections 220(1) CrPC and 223(a) and (d) CrPC, consolidated charges can be framed against several accused persons in r....