Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.K. GOSWAMI, N.L. UNTWALIA AND D.A. DESAI, JJ.
Yash Pal Mital, Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1973,
D/-3-11-1977.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Frank Anthony, Sr. Advocate (Mr. D. N. Mishra, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. R. L. Kohli, Sr. Advocate (Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate with him), for Respondent.
Indian Penal Code - Section 455, 471/466, 476/466, 417, 419 and 120-B – Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – Section 196-A (2) - Imprisonment for life - Cheating By personating – Condo nation of delay - Whether accused had proper notice of charge with definite object of conspiracy - Whether there was any prejudice to accused in any manner affecting trial - Whether the offence of conspiracy has been committed - Whether charges will be ultimately established against accused is a completely different matter within domain of trial Court - Accused profits by delay in many ways but State should have been vigilant to apply for an expeditious hearing of such a short matter since trial has been inordinately delayed on account of this - Methodology of disposal of such a matter like pattern court have been recently adopting may suitable be to dispose of whole matter within a month after notice of motion to State at time of hearing of special leave petition - District Jullundur and others to a criminal conspiracy to do or cause to be done certain illegal acts namely to prepare or to be prepared spurious Government of India Passports booklets to forge or cause to be forged entries and endorsements therein and to use or cause to be used such forged passports as genuine knowing or having reason to believe them to be forged in order to facilitate travel of persons abroad including yourselves and thereby to cheat Embarkation Authorities at Air Ports by inducing such authorities to believe that passports were valid and genuine and upon such belief permit travel abroad And thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B I. P. C. read with Ss. 465, 476/466 and 419 I. P. C. and within cognizance of Court of Session – Held, Gist of offence is an agreement to break law - Parties to such an agreement will be guilty of criminal conspiracy though the illegal act agreed to be done has not been done - So too it is not an ingredient of offence that all parties should agree to do a single illegal act - It may comprise commission of a number of acts - Under S. 43 of Indian Penal Code an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited by law - Under first charge accused are charged with having conspired to do three categories of illegal acts and the mere fact that all of them could not be convicted separately in respect of each of the offences has no relevancy in considering question whether offence of conspiracy has been committed - They are all guilty of offence of conspiracy to do illegal acts though for individual offences all of them may not be liable - Court are in respectful agreement the above observations with regard to offence of criminal conspiracy - Main object of the criminal conspiracy in first charge is undoubtedly cheating by personating - Other means adopted inter alia are preparation or causing to be prepared spurious passports forging or causing to be forged entries and endorsements in that connection and use of or causing to be used forged passports as genuine in order to facilitate travel of persons abroad - Final object of conspiracy in first charge being offence of cheating by personating as court find other offences described therein are steps albeit offence themselves in aid of ultimate crime - Charge does not connote plurality of objects of conspiracy - That appellant himself is not charged with ultimate offence which is the object of criminal conspiracy is beside point in a charge under S. 120-B I. P. C. as long as he is a party to conspiracy with end in view - Whether charges will be ultimately established against accused is a completely different matter within the domain of trial Court - Principal object of criminal conspiracy in first charge is thus cheating by personating and without achieving that goal other acts would be of no material use in which any person could be necessarily interested - That appellant himself does not personate another person is beside point when he is alleged to be a collaborator of conspiracy with that object - Court have seen that some persons have been individually and specifically charged with cheating by personating under S. 419 I. P. C - They were also charged along with appellant under S. 120-B I. P. C - Object of criminal conspiracy is absolutely clear and there is no substance in argument that object is merely to cheat simplicities under S. 417 I. P. C - Appeal dismissed
Judgment
GOSWAMI, J. - The criminal case, out of which this appeal arises, goes back to the year 1961. On July 1 1967, the Special Judicial Magistrate Punjab, camp Jullundur, committed the appellant along with several others to stand trial in the Court of Session under various charges, such as under Ss. 455, 471/466, 476/466, 417, 419 read with S. 120-B I. P. C. Apparently it took nearly three years for the trial to commence. On objection being raised by the accused with regard to the sanction under S. 196-A (2) Cr. P. C., 1898, the trial Court on June 6, 1970, rejected the same by holding that no sanction was necessary in the case. The trial Court, however, held that the particular sanction accorded under S. 196-A (2), Cr. P. C. was invalid, the correctness of which was not challenged before us.
2. That led to a revision application by the accused before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. That was also rejected on March 24, 1972. The appellant obtained special leave against the order of the High Court on April 5, 1973.
3. Even such a short matter, as it is, where no records are required to be prepared, has come up for hearing before us after well over four years. True, the accused profits by the delay in many ways but the State should have been vigilant to apply for an expeditious hearing of such a short matter since the trial has been inordinately delayed on account of this. The methodology of disposal of such a matter, like the pattern we have been recently adopting, may suitable be to dispose of the whole matter within a month after notice of motion to the State at the time of hearing of the special leave petition.
4. The only question raised before us by Mr. Frank Anthony is with regard to the invalidity of the trial under S. 120-B. I. P. C. in absence of sanction under S. 196-A (2), Cr. P. C., 1898.
5. In order to appreciate the objection we may at once turn to the charges framed in the trial. The appellant faces only one charge along with 11 others as follows :-
"Firstly :- That you all during the period January, 1961 to May, 1962 in the State of Punjab, at Bombay and at Calcutta were party with the following accused persons who are absconding, namely;
1. Julman Singh s/o Kishen Singh v. Nazara Navabad, Distt. Jullundur.
2. Gurdev Singh s/o Munshi Ram v. Cheekshi, Dt. Jullundur.
3. Minder s/o Sucha Singh v. Sarhala Distt. Jullundur.
4. Harnam Singh s/o Udham Singh v. Pathlave, Distt. Jullundur,
and with one Jodh Singh son of Vir Singh. 8 Modern Colony, District Jullundur and others to a criminal conspiracy to do or cause to be done certain illegal acts namely to prepare or to be prepared spurious Government of India Passports booklets, to forge or cause to be forged entries and endorsements therein and to use or cause to be used such forged passports as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe, them to be forged, in order to facilitate travel of persons abroad including yourselves and thereby to cheat the Embarcation Authorities at Air Ports by inducing such authorities to believe that the passports were valid and genuine and upon such belief permit the travel abroad....... And thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B, I. P. C. read with Ss. 465, 476/466 and 419, I. P. C. and within the cognizance of the Court of Session."
The first charge in which all accused are named including the appellant is the principal charge describing the nature and object of the conspiracy in which a number of persons including absconders and some unknown persons were involved. With regard to the twelve other remaining charges, although the appellant was not charged under any of them, his other companions were charged and in eight of these charges, specific mention was made of various offences being committed "in pursuance of the said conspiracy". Some of the accused persons are charged under substantive offences which are connected with the object of the conspiracy. The Court could have added in the remaining charges also that
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
