LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus CHEEMALAPATI GANESWARA RAO & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
..
3 S.C.R..
SUPREME COURT R.EPOR.TS
297
locked. The appellant also knew the whereabouts
of the property inside the house of his maternal
grandfather.
He attempted to sell a few muffiers a
day before the recoveries were made.
He was seen
arriving at the house, during the night, in a car with
some persons and then removing property which
looked like bales from the car to the house.
All
these circumst.mces go to support the finding that
he had a~sisted in the concealment of the stolen pro-
perty and had thus committed the offence under
s.414 I.P.C.
We therefore ·see no force in this appeal and,
accordingly, dismiss it.
Appeal dismissed.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
CHEEMALAPATI GANESWARA RAO & ANR.
(K. SuBBA Ri1.o, RAGHUBA.R DAYAL and
j. R. MUDHOLKAR jj.)
Criminal Trial-'-Joind.er nf charg" and pers<»U- Oon•·
pirac71,
charge of-If illegal
after conspiracy fructifiea-
Examination of accmed-Right of accv•ed to examine him.ielf aa
witneM-lf duty of Oovrt to inform acc""ed of right-Pardota,
legality of-Approver-Refreshing memory by reference to docu-
ment•-lf Pormiasible-AamiMibility of evidence-Account Boo"8
-Ab1enee of entrie. •f payment. aUeged -Gode of Criminal
ProceJure, 1898 (5 Bf 1~98), 81. 233 to 339,342,337,529,537-
Indian Evidence Act. 1872(1of1872), 81.ti,ll,34,lli9,1~~.
A and B were tried together at one trial, A of offences
under ss. 120-B, 409,477-A and 471 read with •· 476 Indian
Penal Code and B of offences under ss. 120-B,409 read with 109
1963
J.jm,ra Nath
••
Stal• •! '-fa1hJ•
Prad!1h
Raghubar Dayal /,
Jj63
Stat1 of AndAr•
Prad1sh
y,
Cluemolapati
Ganer!riar!J {(flO
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964]VOL.
and HI read with 467 Indian Penal Code. The Senions Judge
who tried them convicted A of all the offence• char11cd and B
of the first two charges. On app•al the High Court acquitted
both of them. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The
respondents contended: (i) that there was a misjoinder of
charges and persons on account ,,f the cumulative uae of the
various clauses of s. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
which wa• not permissible, (ii) that no charge of conspiracy
could be framed after the conspiracy had fructifi•d, (iii) that
the Sessions Judge had failed to inform the accused of their
right under s. 342 (+) of the Code to examine themselves as
witnesS<s, (iv) that the pardon had been granted to the approve!'
illrgally, (v) that the approver had been allowed ilkgally to
refresh his memory by reference to documents at the time when
he was examined before the Court, and (vi) that the accouut
books of ce1tain firms which contained ..., entries regarding
payments alleged to have been made to them were inadmissible
in evidence.
Held that there was no misjoinder of charges and of
accused persons. It is open to the Court to avail itself cumula-
tively of the provisions of the different clauses of s. 239 of the
Code for the purpose of framing charges. Sections 233 to 236
do not override the provisions of 1. 239. But the provisions of
ss. 234 to 231> can also be resorted to in the case of a joint trial
of several persons permissible under s. 239. Even if there was
a misjoinder the High Court was incompetent to set aside the
convictions without coming to the definite conclusion that the
misjoinder had occasioned failure of justice.
Re: Jlanka11alapati Gopala Rao, A.I.R. 1956 Andhra 21 and
T.B .. Mukherji v. State, A.I.R. 1954 All. 501, not approved.
State of Andhra Prad"8h v. KandimaUa Subbaiah, [1962]
2 $.C.R. 194, K.V. Kri8'tna Murthy Iyer v. State of M<Jdra•,
A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 406, Willi• (William) Slaney v. State of
Madhya Pru.duh. (1955) 2 S.C.R. 1140, Birichh Bhuta'll v. TM
State of Bihar. (1964) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 328.
Held further that where offences have been committed in
pursuance of a conspiracy, it ·is legally permissible to charge the
accused with these offences as well as with the conspiracy to
· commit those offences. Conspiracy is an entirely independent
offence and though other offence• are committed in pursuance of
the conspiracy, the liability of the conspirators for the con1pi•
racy iuclf caunot disappear,
..
I
-
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
299
Stale of Andhra Prade•h v. Kanclimalla Sabbaiah. ( 1902)
2 S.C.R. 194, relied on.
S. Swamirathnam v. State of Jlaclra1, A.LR. 1957 S.C.
340 and Natwarlal Sakarlal Mudy v. Slate of Bomba11, Cr. A.
No. 111of1959, dt. 19.1.1961, referred to.
Hold furtherExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.