LexTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus KANDIMALLA SUBBAIAH AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Bawa Harigir v. Assistant Gusto· dian, Evacuee Property, Bhopal Mudholkar ]. 1961 March 8, 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] when it was pointed out to him that in Rabia Bai v. The Custodian-General of Evacuee Property (1), this Court has upheld the order of the Custodian refusing to confirm the transfer on the ground that the evacuee had effected it in bad faith. The last contention of learned counsel is that he has been discriminated against by .the Custodian in the matter of confirmation of the transaction. He said that prior to the sale of the land to him by Rehmatul- lah, the latter had sold a house to some nurses and that that sale was found to be for inadequate con- sideration but in spite of that it was confirmed by the Custodian while the sale in his favour, though found to be for an adequate consideration was not cpnfirmed. We would repeat that the order of the Custodian is a judicial order and merely because he may have gone wrong in dealing with one case we cannot hold that the petitioner has been discriminated against. The petition is wholly without basis and is accordingly dismissed without costs. Petition dismissed. THE STATE OF ANDHRA .PRADESH v. KANDIMALLA SUBBAIAH AND ANOTHER (B. P. SINHA, C. J., J. R. MUDHOLKAR and T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.) .. • Criminal Trial-Accused persons charged with more than three I! offences in the course of the same transaction, if could be jointly tried-Large number of charges spread over long period-Framing of-Duty of Judge or Magistrate-Conspiracy if distinct from abet- ment-Special Judge appointed under Criminal Law Amendment Act, if could try offences under Criminal ·Procedure Code, at the same trial-Indian Penal Code, I86o (Act XLV of 1860), ss. rn9, I2oB, 463-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), ss. 234, 239-Criminal Law Amendment Act (46 of 1952), ss. 6, 7- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947), s. 5· (1) [1961] 3 S.C.R. 448. • 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 195 The High Court quashed the charges framed against the respondents. The charge sheet stated that accused r to 9 had The State of committed offences under s. rzoB of the Indian Penal Code and A>idhra Pradesh s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, r947, and that accused No. r had committed offences under ss. 5(r)(c) and 5 K d' v.ll Sub . f C . A d 6 6 f an ima a - (r)(d) o.f the Prevent10n o orruphon ct an ss. 4 3, 4 4 o baiah & Another the Indian Penal Code and accused z to 8 abetted all the offences and each of the accused in addition had committed offences under s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court direct- ed the Special Judge to frame fresh charges inter alia on the ground that charge No. r was an omnibus charge containing as many as 203 offences and that it was direct violation of ss. 234, 235 and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the offences under s. r20B read with ss. 466, 467 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code because he was appointed a Special Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, only for trying offences under Preven- tion of COl'ruption Act. The question was whether all the accused persons could be jointly tried in respect of all these offences. Held, that when several persons had committed offences in the course of the same transaction, they could jointly be tried in respect of all those offences under s. 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the limitation placed by s. 234 of the Code could not come into operation, but the charges should be suitably split up so that the accused persons would not be pre- judiced in answering the charges and defending themselves. Held, further, there is no analogy between s. rzoB and s. rag of the Indian Penal Code. There may be an element of abetment in a conspiracy which is an offence by itself but con- spiracy is something more than abetment for which a person could separately be charged. Offences created under ss. rog and :czoB of the Indian Penal Code are quite distinct and there is no warrant for limiting the prosecution to only one element of cons- piracy, that is, abetment when the allegation is that what a person did was something over and above that. If the alleged offences flow out of the conspiracy the appropriate form of charge would be a specific charge in respect of each of those offences along with the charge of conspiracy. Held, further,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.