LexDARSHAN SINGH RAM KISHAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
8
c
D
G
H
DARSHAN SINGHRAJ\1 KISHA'N
v.
STATE Of1MAHARASHTRA
September 2, 1971
[J: .M. 'SHELAT, I.· D. DuA AND,$. C. ROY, JJ.)
571.
~
Code of Criminal' Procedure' (Ac;/ 5 of 1898), S: 19"64(2)-Charge-
shee,t by po/ice-Nq reference to or a1/egation of crilninal conspiracy-
.\1agisttate framing charges for-offences including. under s. 120-B~. l~P.C.
Whether prior consent under~~ 196A(2), Cr.P.C., rteCessizry.
•
•
Tµe police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant and" another '"for -
various offences ip connection with the fabrication of a' British passport.
Tht3 offences mentioned in the cl]argc·shej!t against the appellant were
ss. 419/109, 468 .and 471, J.P.C., and against-the other accused ss. 419 and
471 read with s. 468~ The Magistrate dfd not exatnine any witnesses.
but after perming the charge-slieet 'and .bther documents filed bl'fore him
under s. 19'3, 4Cr.P.C., framed charges against the~·two~accused and com-
mitted them for trial before the Sessi<{nS" Court.
The .. charges
against
the accusecct included the offence under s. 120B, ·J.P.C., the object of the
conspiracy being) to commit the non-cognizable offence of forging tl\e
.passport.
~
•
The appi:Jlant filed an application in the, High, Court tor quashing the
committaf order on the ground that no oonscnt, as required by s. 196A(1).
Cr.P.C., having been -obtained, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to 'take
cognizance of the offence of conspiracy.
The High Court' dis1nisscd the
application.
Dismissing. the apPeaI to· this Court,
HELD: {l) Cognizance takes place when the Magistra\~ takes judi-
cial "llotice of ah offence. Therefore, when a Magistrate takes cognizante
of an 'OffenCe, under s. 190, Cr.P.G. upon a police report, prilria facie he
doc_s ·SO of the of\en,ces alleged )n the report. (573 .H; 574 A]
1n the prese'tll case the charge-sheet did., not ref~r to or charge ~ithcr
of 'the accused \with criminal
conspiracy.
The' •cognizan'Ce
Which
the
Magistrate took was therefore, .. only of the, offences alleged in the chargc-
:>hcet, and it was onJy at the later Stage of ~passing the
cQmmittal rorder
that he considered that a chafge under. ~- 1408 \Vas
more
appropriate
tha1i, that of abctment." (574 F-HJ
·
·(2) Even on .. 'the basis that it is not tl1c sections referred to -in
the
.charge--sheet that matter, but the offence . .prinza facie
disclOsed by
the
allegations, in the presenl case, the offence 'primarily and. 'essentially' di<
closed in the charge-sheet and other documents \Vas one of abetment ot
forgery and of the fal~e impcr.onation.· (575 F-H]
· '
..
Therefore, the ·Magistrate 0did..not take cognizance of the offence under
s. 120Jl, J.P.C., .and hence, consent under s. i96A(2) Cr.P.C.," was
not
.a condition. precedent. (,576 .ll-CJ
t•
~·
••
CRIMINAL Ai>PELVATE JuR1smc'r10N : Criminal _Appeal No.
100 of 1969. ·
·
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 1 S.C.R.
Appeal by special ieave from rhe judgment !!jnd order dated
January 8, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Applica-
tion No. 1341 of 1968.
C. L. Sareen and J. C. Ta/war, for the appellant.
P. K. Chatterjee and S. P. Nayar, for the re&pQn.dent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shelat, J. The appellant and one Bakshi Singh Sunder Singh
II
were accused No. 2 and accused No. 1 respecuvely m Lile wu1-
mittal proceedings before the Presidency Magistrate, 28th Court,
Greater Bombay.
This appeal, by special leave, is directed
against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay refusing to
C
qua'h the order of committal passed by the learned Magistrate.
The facts relevant to this appeal are few and may first be
stated.
On October 31, 1963, one Jivansingh Uttam Singh obtained
a British passport bearing No. 183459 at Nairobi.
On
the
strength of that passport he was returning to
India with his
tamily.
On his way he died on board the ship.
According to
the prosecution that passport came into the hands of the appel-
lant.
Bakshi Singh desired to go to the United Kingdom, but
had no passport.
The appellant agreed to arrange his journey
and also for that purpose to obtain a passport for him.
The allegation was that the appellant prepared an applica-
tion for a visa in the name of Bakshi Singh.
It was further
alleged that with a view to procure the said visa the photograph
of the said deceased Jivansingh was removed from the said pass-
port and that of Bakshi Singh substituted.
The visa haExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.