Sanction under S. 196-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not necessary for the trial of offences under S. 120-B read with Ss. 467/471 and 420 I. P. C. when the object of the conspiracy is to commit cheating and the forgery and use of forged documents are merely means adopted to achieve that object.

Judgement

VAIDIALINGAM, J. : -The two appellants, in this appeal, by special leave, challenge their conviction, by the Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Jaipur City, for offences under Ss. 120-B. 420, 420 read with 511, and 467 read with 471, I. P. C., as confirmed by the High Court of Rajasthan, at Jodhpur. Bhanwar Singh has also been convicted, for an offence under S. 380, I. P. C. Both of them have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine, for these offences, and the sentences, of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently.

2. The two appellants, along with two others, who have since been acquitted, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, for various offences, as indicated below. There was a common charge of Criminal conspiracy, under S. 120-B, I. P. C., to do, or cause to be done, illegal acts, viz., offences of theft, cheating, forgeries, etc., against all the four accused. Under this head, the allegation was that the four accessed agreed, among themselves, to commit theft and pilferage, of Indian and British postal orders and bank cheques, belonging to different persons, which were in transmission, by post and that, after such pilfering, the names of the original payees and the names of the paying post offices were erased, and forgery was committed by writing the names of fictitious persons, or the names of some of the accused, and of different post offices. The further allegation was that the accused agreed to use, as genuine, all such pilfered and forged postal orders and cheques, which the accused knew, or had reasons to believe were forged documents. There was also an allegation that all the accused had also agreed to present such pilfered and forged postal orders and cheques, for encashment at the post offices and banks at Ajmer and Jaipur through the two appellants and Yasoda Devi, 4th accused pretending to be either the original payees or the substituted payees. It was further alleged that the accused had agreed to cheat, or attempt to cheat, the postal authorities and banks, at. Ajmer and Jaipur, by dishonestly inducing them to make payment to the appellants and Yasoda Devi in respect of the pilfered and forged postal orders and cheques. It was also stated that the accused committed the various acts. In pursuance of the agreement, regarding the postal orders and cheques, details of which were given under that charge. Appellant Bhanwar Singh was also further charged that, in pursuance of the conspiracy, during October 1956 and December 1957, he committed theft of various postal orders and cheques, belonging to various persons and that he also forged certain postal orders, which were valuable securities, by removing the names of the original payees and inserting his own name and that he thereby cheated the postal authorities at Jaipur, by dishonestly inducing them to deliver certain amounts against such postal orders, which were really payable to a third party and thereby he committed offences of theft, forgery and cheating, under Ss. 380, 487 and 420, 1. P. C. There were also certain further charges, for offences punishable under S. 471; and of an attempt to commit cheating in respect of a cheque, punishable under S. 420 read with S. 511, 1. P. C.

3. Similarly, against Kishanlal, the 2nd appellant, there were additional charges, framed under Ss. 467, 420, 420 read with 511 and 471, 1. P. C Kapoorchand was also charged under Ss. 380 and 467 1. P. C., and Yasoda Devi under Ss. 467. 471, 420 and 419 1 P C.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief was as follows. Bhanwar Singh and Kapoorchand were constables in the C. 1. D., Ajmer Zone, during 1956-57. In the course of their duties of censoring postal mail, these two constables, after having opened the mail, for the purpose of censoring pilfered certain Indian postal orders and British postal orders and cheques and, after erasing the names of the original payees, as also the names of the post offices or banks, where payment was to be made, inser