LexYASH PAL MITTAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- • YASH PAL MITTAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB November 3, 1977 781 [P. K. GOSWAMI, N. L. UNTWALIA AND D. A. DESAI, JJ .] Penal Codt: (Act 45 of 1860), sec. 120A and 120B-Object <111d scope of. Crin1i11al Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), sec. 196A(ii)-sec. 196 of 1973 Codc-Obiect of crinzinal conspiracy, if clear fro111 the chargr itself, H'!tether irial is 1•itiated for wan! of sanction udders. 196A(2). A criminal case was filed in 1961 against the appellant under s. 1208 of the Pena.I Code \Vhile in respect of others for various offences under ss. 465, 471/ 466, 476/466, 470 and 419 read with s. 1208, Penal Code. The Special Judi- cial Magistrate, Punjab Camp Jullundur framed charges under the aforesaid sections against the accused. An objection, "thut for wnnt of sanction under s. J96A(2) of the Crirnina-t Procedure Code 1898 the trial under s. 120B. I.P.C. was invalid," raised by the accused appellant was rejected by the Tri~! - Court on 6-6-1970 holding that no sanction was necessary in the case._ A revision application filed against the said orders was dismissed by the Punja·b High Court on 24-3- t 972. The appellant thereafter obtained special leave on 5-4-1973 from this Court. Dismissing the appeal the Collrt, HELO : (i) The very agreement, concert or league is the ingredient of the offence of criminnl conspiracy under s. 120A introduced for the first time in 1913 in Ch::ipter VA of the Penal Code. It is not necessary that :.fll the cons- pirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as Jong as they arc co-participators in the n1ain object of the conspiracy. There may be so 1natl.y devices and techniques adopted to achieve the comn1on goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of action<; with _o,pe object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware aiict in \vhich each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of nlea-ns sometimes even unkno\vn to one another. amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done n1ust be a.nd purported 10 be in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy even though there n1ay be sometimes mis-fire or over-shooting by some of the con<;- pirators. Even if some steps are resorted to by one or two of the conspirators without the kno\vledge of the others it ¥.'ill not affect the culpability of tho~e ethers \\'hen they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. [784 F-H, 785 Al Major B. G. Barsay v. The Slate of Bon1bay [1962] 2 SCR 195 at 228. fclJowcd. (2) That an accused himself is not ch<!!rged with the ultimate offence which is the object of the criminal conspiracy is besides the point in a charge under s. 120B I.P.C. as long as he is a party to the conspiracy with the end in view. \Vhether the charges will be ultimately establi~hed ae:ainst the accui;;ell is a completely different matter v,.'ithin the domain of the 'frial Cou11. [785 Fl (3) In the instant case : (a) The main object of the criminal conspiracy in the first charge is un- doubtedly "cheating by personation". The other means adopted, ihter alia, are prepara!ion or causing to be prepared spurious pa-ssporl<;; forging or cau5- A B c D II: F G ing to be forged entries and endorsements in that connection; and use of or causing to be used for,ged passport as genuine in order to facilitate travel of H persons ;ibroad. The final object of the conspiracy in the first ch·arge being the offence of cheatin!? by personation. the other offences described therein are stepg albeit offences themselves in aid of the ultirnrite criine. Without achiev- A 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] 1 S.C.R. ing that £Oal other acts would be of no material use in which any person colild be necessarily interested. That the appellant himself does not personatc an- other person is beside the point when he is alleged to be a collaborator of the f:onspiracy with that object. f785D-E-FJ (b) Although the word "cheating by personation'' was not mentioned in the charge, no valid objection could be made, as the entire recitals are dear and are also follo\vcd up by a specific mention of the offence under s. 419. LP.C. !783 IL 784 Al B Bha11war Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.