LexBHANWAR SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BHANWAR SINGH & ANR.
v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
December S, I 967
CM. HIDAYATULLAH AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.)
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) ss. 233 and 196-A(2)-
Joint trial of charges--0/fence under s. 120 B. J.P.C. read with .ss. 461
nnd 411 l.P.C. requiring sanction for prosccution-Scnction not obtained
--Offence under s. 120 B read "'ith s. 420 l.F>.C. nor requiring sanction-
Joint trial not illegal if main object ol conspiracy
i.'i to com1nit
latter
ofJence.
The appellants along with two other.; were charged with having ea-
tcred into a criminal conspiracy in pursuanee of which postal orders and
cheques in the course of transit by post were pilfered and after 'arious
alterations being made therein were encashcd at post offices anU hanks.
The charges inter a/ia were under ss. 467/4n--d.ltitll s .. J2().B
and s.
420 read with s. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Tue Sessi<lns Judge
convict.!d all the four accused but the High Coun maintained the convic-
tion only of the two appellants.
In appeal before this Coun the appellants
urged that inasmuch as the accused were prosecuted for non<ogniz.able
offences under ss. 467/471 read with s. 120-B J.P.C. the trial was illegal
and void as the necessary sanction under s. 196-A(2) of the Code of Cri-
minal Procedure had not been obtained.
II was further urged that the
mere fact that the accused were also tried for the offence of cheating, under
s. 420 I.P.C. for which no sanction was required, would not make the
trial valid.
Under these circumstances it was contended that the joint
trial for cognizable and non-cognizable offences was illegal and void.
HELD : It is necessary to keep in mind the difference between the
object of a conspiracy and the means adopted for realising that object.
!'lo sanction is n"°essary under s. 196-A(2) Cr. P.C. when the obiect of
the conspiracy is to commit the offence of cheating {420 I.P.C.) but for·
gery of documents ( 467 1.P.C.) and similar non-cognizable olfencee are
also commiued, as merely steps taken. by one or other of the ac~
for the purpose of ttfectin~ the main object of the conspiracy. [533 F·HJ
The object of the conspiracy has to be determined. not only by refer-
ence to the sections of th~ penal cnac.ment, referred to in the charge but
on a reading of the charges themselves.
The charges against the apPellants
showed that the only object of the conspiracy was to cheat the banks .,..
the post offices, referred to in the charges, which is an offence under s. 2120
read with s. 120-B I.P.C. for which no sanction is ncc~ry. The forging
of the documents and usuing such for~cd documents
~·ere only mean.s
adopted by the accused for realising the aforesaid object. Therof0<c the
trial of the accused in the present case for offences under S.'i. 120-B read
with ss . .467'471 and 420 J.P.C. ond other allied offences. cannot be held
to be ille~al on the ground that ~anction under s. 19f>-A(2J of the Criminal
Procedure Cod, had not been oh:ained. (534 B-EJ
State of A11dlrra Pradesh v. Ka11dinwla S11bbaiah. [196~) 1 S.C.R. 194.
Ramchandra Rango v. F.rnpervr, A.LR. 1939 Born. 129. Durgadas Tulri-
ram v. Stare. A.LR. 1955 Rom. 8'.!. Ah.111/ K«dar 1·. Stare. A.I.R. !964
Bom. 133. Paresl1 !\''1th v. Ernpernr, A.LR. 1947 Cal. 32. Go/tun Rahman
v. The Kinf!. A.LR. 1950 Cal. 66. Ka11'1a11. i11 rr. [1949) '.! M.L.J. Shon
52~
A
B
c
D
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BHANWAR SINGH V. RAJASTHAN (Vaidialingam, I.)
529
Notes p. 52 Vadlamudi v. State of A.P. A.I.R. 1961 A.P. 448, referred
to.
Subbaiah. In re: I.L.R. 1958 A.P. ·791, ladeda Meramanji v. State of
Gujarat, (1963)2 Cr. L.J. 713, Nibaran Chandra v. Emperor, A.LR. 1929
Cal. 754 and Madan Lal v. Slllle of Punjab, A.LR. 1967 S.C. 15901 distin-
gnished.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crimiljal Appeal No.
137 of 1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 9, 1967 of the Rajasthan High Court in S. B. Criminal A11-
pcal No. 254 of 1966.
Sobhag Mal Jain, for the appellants.
H. R. Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Vaidialingam, J. The two appellants, in this appeal, by special
leave, challenge their conviction, by the Additional
Sessions
Judge, No. 1, Jaipur City, for offences under ss. 120B, 420, 420
read with 511, and 467 read with 471, I.P.C., as confirmed by
the High Court of Rajasthan, at Jodhpur.
Bhanwar Singh has
also been convicted, Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.