LexBANWARI LAL JHUNJHUNWALA AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
IHI Biri<M BAuiaa y, Si.,.~Bilw s.h6o Rtu, J. Ila N-"', 21, 338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] SUPP. the joinder of charges was contrary to the provisions of the Code it would be a mis-joinder of charges. Section 537 prohibits the revisional or the appellate court from setting aside a finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction on the ground of such a misjoinder unless it has occasioned a failure of justice. In this ca5e there was a clear misjoinder of charges against several persons. But the High Court held that there was no failure of justice· and the appellants had their full say in the matter and they were not prejudiced in any way. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was right in not setting aside the convictions of the accused and the sentence passed against them. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.ppe,al di1miased. BANW ARI LAL JHUNJHUNW ALA AND OTHERS ti. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (And connected appeals) (K. SUBBA RAo and RAOBUJIAB DAYAL, JJ.) Crifltilllll lriai-' 11 .. ,., d\alitld oJJ-', Jt-"119 of- O""'fli-.-Covrl trgit1g oJfmce of coupiracy .,,.,. try all oJ/_, C0111mit"-<1 ;,. JllW,.,....., of coupiraey-Iflllian Penal <Jade, 1860 (.Act 46 of 1860), •· 71, a.120-B-OotkofOriminol Protttl,,,., 1898'(Act 5 of 1898), 1 •. 233. A firm having two partners entered into a contract for the 111pply of 1306.5 · tons of bottom boanh Cor railway wagons a, certain specified varieties of hardwood to tbe Central Railwaf ' I ' A 2 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 339 Administration. The wood was to be supplied at dift'crent places in different quantities. The firm supplied wood of inferior quality. Thomson and other oflicen issued false inspection notes certifying the quality of the wood to be accord· ing to specification. On the basis of thOIC false inspection notes, the Jinn received payment of IU. 3,77,771. The accused were charged under ss. 109,120·B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and s. ~(l )(d) read withs. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and were sent up for trial to the court of the Special Judge, Kerala. C~ were aho framed against them. However, the cate was transfened by thls couit to the court of the Special Judge, Poona; The latter amended certain chatReS and aho added a new charge against certain appellants. The accused went in revision to the High Court of Bombay and questioned the legality or propriety of variau1 charges. The High Court ordered certain minor modillcations in the charges and against that order both the accused and the Union of India came to this court by speci&l leaW. It wiu contended on behalf of the accused that the obtainmg of money by submitting each separate bill amounted to one distinct otrence for which a separate charge should have been framed in view of 1. 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the charge as framed was a combination of a number of charges with respect to oeveral offences of cheating committed by obtaining money on the preseiitatioii of 18 or 19 bills and was, therefore, against the provisions of 1. 233. It was also contended that the charge of cheating should have been framed against that partner who had submitted the bill and obtained money. Htld, that the expraaion "every distinct oft'ence" in 1. 233 Code of Criminal Procedure has a dift'erent content fi'Oln the eiq>rCllion "every ollCnce" or "each oft'ence" and that oft'enccs would be distinct if they .be not in any way inter-related. c.r.,,,_ v. fie &ala, A. I. lL 1954 All. 795, approved. Htld, further that a single charge for the oft"ence of cheat· ing in punuance of conspiracy did not contravene the provisions of 1. 233 of the Code of .Criminal Procedure. The conspiracy <:11~ into by the appellants was not for obtaining diverse amounts by cheating but to ·obtain the . entire C911tract money by clieating. - The -o&ncc of cheating contemplated by· the conspiraton was one otrence of obtaining, by cheating, the full amount due under the 00ntract for the material supplied. While the obtaining of money by cheating on the ix-Dtation of an. individual bill · did Coiistitnte the odmce of <:heating, the obtaining-of the entire money In pursuance of the terms of the single cl>ntrilci and the single compiracy entered Into also 1911 "-' lAI Jlnmjlw•UJO/a •• UolM of lollo 1962 Batflll4ri Lal Jlwnjlw•wala •• Union oj lttdia 340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] SUPP. con
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.