1. Public servant sold official transport permit books to others for forging signatures to transport non-duty paid tobacco — Charges under Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 94
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
8th March, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., J.R. MUDHOLKAR AND T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
The State of A.P., Appellant
Versus
Kandimalla Subbaiah and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
M/s. H. J. Umrigar and T. M. Sen, Advocates, for Appellant.
Advocates:
H.J.Umrigar, T.M.SEN
H.J.Umrigar, T.M.SEN
Criminal conspiracy is a distinct offence from abetment and substantive crimes; thus, an accused can be charged with both. Additionally, a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act can try other associated offences in the same trial pursuant to Section 7(3) of the Act.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 420, 466, 467, 471 and 109 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 5(1)(c), 5(1)(d), 5(2), 6 and 7 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 234, 235, 239 and 196A(2) - Joint trial for multiple offences - Where offences are committed in the course of the same transaction, the limitation on the number of offences tried at one trial does not operate; persons accused of the same offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together. (Para 6)
(B) Indian Penal Code - Section 120B - Conspiracy - Conspiracy to commit an offence is itself a distinct offence and a person can be separately charged with such conspiracy even if the substantive offences were actually committed in pursuance thereof - There is no analogy between Section 120B and Section 109; conspiracy is something more than abetment. (Para 8)
(C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 7(3) - Jurisdiction of Special Judge - A Special Judge appointed to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act may also try any other offences with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, be charged at the same trial. (Paras 11-12)
Facts of the case:
A public servant in charge of transport permit books sold two such books to other individuals. These books were used to transport non-duty paid tobacco by forging signatures of officials and filling in false particulars. The accused were charged with criminal conspiracy, criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, forgery, and cheating. The High Court quashed the charges on the grounds that the conspiracy charge was bad when substantive offences were committed, the charges suffered from multiplicity, and the Special Judge lacked jurisdiction to try non-corruption offences.
Findings of Court:
The court held that multiple offences forming part of the same transaction can be tried together. It rejected the view that a charge of conspiracy is impermissible when substantive offences are also charged, noting that conspiracy is a separate offence from abetment. It further held that the Special Judge had the jurisdiction to try associated offences under the statutory provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Issues: Whether multiple offences in one transaction can be tried together; whether a separate charge of conspiracy is permissible alongside substantive offences; and whether a Special Judge appointed for corruption cases has jurisdiction to try other associated offences in the same trial.
Ratio Decidendi: Conspiracy is a distinct offence from abetment and the substantive crimes committed in pursuance of it; therefore, charging both is legally valid. Under Section 7(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a Special Judge's jurisdiction extends to other offences if they are charged at the same trial. Sections 235 and 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permit joint trials for offences part of the same transaction.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether charges were bad for multiplicity, whether conspiracy charges are permissible alongside substantive offences, and whether the Special Judge had jurisdiction to try non-corruption offences. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 )
3. Joint trials are permissible for offences in the same transaction; conspiracy is a distinct offence from abetment; Special Judges can try related offences under Section 7(3). (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 12 )
4. Conspiracy to commit an offence is a distinct crime punishable separately from the substantive offence; Special Judges may try related offences under Section 7(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. (Para 8 , 12 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Special Judge directed to reframe charges and proceed with the trial. (Para 14 )
6. Can multiple persons be jointly tried for several offences committed in the same transaction?
Yes. Under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, persons accused of the same offence, or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction, may be charged and tried together. The limitation on the number of offences in Section 234(1) does not operate where offences form part of the same transaction. (Para 6 )
7. Is a separate charge of conspiracy permissible when the substantive offences in pursuance of that conspiracy have also been committed?
Yes. Conspiracy to commit an offence is itself a distinct offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is separate from abetment and can be charged alongside the substantive offences that flowed from the conspiracy. (Para 8 )
8. Can a Special Judge appointed to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act also try other offences under the Indian Penal Code?
Yes. Under Section 7(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a Special Judge, while trying a case, may also try any other offences with which the accused may be charged at the same trial under the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
Judgment
MUDHOLKAR, J. : The State of Andhra Pradesh has come up in appeal against the order passed in revision by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh quashing the charges framed against nine persons by Mr. Syed Firasth Hussain, Special Judge, Vijayawada. The revision petition was preferred by only two of those persons.
2. The accused No. 1 Parthasarathi who was a lower division clerk in the Central Excise Circle at Narasaraopet was in charge of the T. P. 1 permit books (transport permit) intended for issue to Central Excise Officers for granting permits to persons applying bona fide for licences to transport tobacco. According to the prosecution two of those books containing 25 permit forms each were found missing from the aforesaid office. The allegation is that Parthasarathi sold those books to the remaining accused for a consideration of Rs. 400. It was found during the investigation that seven permit forms from out of these books had been used for transport of non-duty paid tobacco after blanks in those forms had been filed and the signatures of certain Central Excise Officers forged on them. Further, according to the prosecution, accused Nos. 2 to 8 got authorisation letters prepared with the help of accused No. 9 by forging the signatures of the supposed consignors of the tobacco. With the help of these documents the accused Nos. 2 to 8 are said to have transported tobacco to the licensed premises of certain persons and received payments for the tobacco delivered to them.
3. The prosecution alleged that all this was done by all the accused by entering into a conspiracy, the object of which was to procure and utilise blank T. P. 1 forms, fill them in forge the signatures of Central Excise Officers and use them as genuine for the purpose of transporting tobacco without paying duty upon it. The change sheet states that the accused Nos. 1 to 9 have committed the offence under S. 120B, Indian Penal Code read with S. 5(2) of prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II of 1947). It further states that the accused No. 1 had committed offences under S. 5(1)(c) and 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, as also offences under Ss. 462, 463 and 464, Indian Penal Code. The accused Nos. 2 to 8 are said to have abetted all these offences. Each of these accused is in addition said to have committed offences under S. 420, Indian Penal Code.
4. The Subordinate Judge, Vijaywada was appointed as Special Judge under the provisions of S. 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 (II of 1952), to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He framed the following charges :
"CHARGE No. I.
That you, accused 1 to 9 on or about 19-9-1953 to 5-11-53 agreed to do by illegal means to wit. A-1 being a public servant in the Central Excise Department dishonestly sold two blank T. P. 1 books for Rs. 350 to one late Jogayya and obtained pecuniary advantage for himself and A-2 to A-8 and that A-9 forged 7 T. P. 1 forms, out of the above two books, which forged T. P. 1s were used by A-2, A-3, A-5, A-7, A-8 with the assistance of A-4 and A-6 and cheated the merchants of Markapur and Cumbum by using the said forged T. P. 1s for the above purpose of cheating; and that the above acts were done by all of you in pursuance of a conspiracy and that thereby you A-1 have committed an offence punishable under S. 120B of the I. P. C. read with S. 5(1)(c) and (d) punishable under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also under S. 109 I. P. C. read with Ss. 420, 466 and 467 of the I. P. C. and that you, A-2 to A-9 under S. 120B read with S. 5(1)(c) and (d) punishable under S. 5(2) of Act II of 1947 and Ss. 420, 466 and 467 and 471 I. P. C. and within my cognizance.
CHARGE No. II.
That you A-1, being a public servant in the Central excise Department, being a Lower Division Clerk in the office of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Narasaraoper Circle, since 1951 and in such capacity were entruisted since 1951 with blank T. P. 1. books, dishonestly sol
