The provisions of Ss. 236 and 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allow a court to convict an accused person even of an offence with which he had not been charged if the court is of the opinion that the provisions of S. 236 apply.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - Forgery - Transport permits - Fictitious entries - Whether false documents - Whether falsification of accounts - Ss. 467, 477-A, I. P. C.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, supervisors in the Central Excise Department, were convicted of forgery and falsification of accounts for issuing fictitious transport permits to evade excise duty on tobacco. The High Court set aside their convictions and ordered a retrial, holding that the permits did not constitute false documents under S. 464, I. P. C., but might amount to falsification of accounts under S. 477-A, I. P. C.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in ordering a retrial and should have decided, on the evidence before it, whether any offence had been committed by the appellants. The Court remanded the case to the High Court for rehearing of the appeals and directed it to dispose of them as early as possible.
Issues: 1. Whether the fictitious transport permits constituted false documents under S. 464, I. P. C.? 2. Whether the fictitious entries in the permits amounted to falsification of accounts under S. 477-A, I. P. C.? 3. Whether the High Court erred in ordering a retrial instead of disposing of the appeals itself?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the fictitious permits did not constitute false documents under S. 464, I. P. C., as they were not intended to be used as genuine documents. 2. The Court held that the fictitious entries in the permits amounted to falsification of accounts under S. 477-A, I. P. C., as they were made with intent to defraud the Government of its revenues. 3. The Court held that the High Court erred in ordering a retrial instead of disposing of the appeals itself, as the provisions of Ss. 236 and 237 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed the Court to convict the appellants of an offence with which they had not been charged if the evidence showed that they had committed it.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the High Court directing the retrial of the appellants, and remanded the case to it for rehearing of the appeals.

Judgment

IMAM, J. : These two appeals have been heard together as the question for consideration is the same in both of them. In Cri. Appeal No. 188 of 1957 the appellant is G. D. Sharma who was Supervisor of the Central Excise Department. In Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1957 the appellant is R. N. Tyagi who was also a Supervisor in the Central Excise Department. They were both posted at Aliganj in the District of Etah in the State of Uttar Pradesh. These two appellants were tried separately and one Om Prakash was a co-accused with them respectively in each of the cases. Om Prakash was the proprietor of the firm M/s. Torhi Lal Om Prakash which carries on business in tobacco at Aliganj.

2. According to the prosecution, tobacco is an excisable article and licences are issued by the Central Excise Department to certain dealers in tobacco. Dealers in tobacco can enter into transactions only up to the quantity stated in their licences. If they sell or transport a larger quantity they have to obtain special transport permits on which they have to pay excise duty. In October, 1950 it was discovered that on account of a conspiracy between the appellants and Om Prakash the Government was being defrauded of large sums of money as there was evasion to pay the necessary excise duty by the issuing of fictitious transport permits by the appellants.

3. A general outline, without mentioning details, of the method adopted by the appellants and Om Prakash to evade the payment of excise duty may be now stated. In the case in which the appellant Sharma and Om Prakash were accused, the alleged forged transport permit is Ext. P-4 dated the 20th of August, 1950. In the case in which the appellant Tyagi and Om Prakash were accused the transport permit is also Ext. P-4 dated the 12th of May, 1950. The former transport permit showed that tobacco had been received by Om Prakash from a tobacco dealer by the name of Harbans Lal and a number of sale notes were recorded in it. Harbans Lal was not a dealer of tobacco. He lived with Om Prakash and could not and did not issue any sale note. In the latter transport permit Om Prakash is said to have received tobacco from one Ram Sarup. In this permit also false entries of sale notes were recorded. According to Ram Sarup, he had never applied for such a transport permit and certainly had not supplied the tobacco. On the same date transport permits were issued to Om Prakash for the sale and transport of his tobacco to other persons. In those permits it was mentioned that the excise duty had been paid on permits No. 670953 dated 20-8-1950 and No. 670832 dated 12-5-1950 issued to Harbans Lal and Ram Sarup respectively. As the result of the issue of fictitious transport permits in the name of Harbans Lal and Ram Sarup, Om Prakash was able to transport a large quantity of tobacco to other persons without paying the requisite excise duty on the tobacco covered by those transport permits and to that extent the Government had been deprived of the excise duty payable on the tobacco transported.

4. The Additional Sessions Judge of Etah convicted the appellant Sharma under S. 467 and sentenced him to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Om Prakash was convicted under S. 467/471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. The appellant Tyagi was convicted by the same Judge under S. 467 of the, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. His co-accused Om Prakash was convicted under S. 467/471, I. P. C., and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for nine months. The Additional Sessions Judge directed the sentence of imprisonment passed o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis