1961 Supreme(SC) 429

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.J. Imam, K. Subba Rao and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.
Natwarlal Shankarlal Mody - Appellants
Versus
State of Bombay - Respondent
Cr. A. No. 111 of 1959
Decided On : 19-01-1961

The discretion of the Court in permitting a joint trial of persons and offences under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the circumstances in which such a joint trial may be considered an irregular exercise of discretion.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - JOINT TRIAL - DISCRETION OF COURT - CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST - SEPARATE TRIALS - RELEVANCE OF SECTION 10 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The Colaba Land and Mills Company Limited (hereinafter called the Company) is a public limited company incorporated in Bombay on July 1, 1880. In the year 1949 Vasudeo Jwalladutt Pilani (hereinafter called accused No. 1) became the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company and on July 20, 1950, he became its Managing Director. His step-brother, Kishenprasad Jwalladutt Pilani (hereinafter called accused No. 2) was appointed as one of the Directors of the Company on May 18, 1948. In March 1949 accused No. 1 took some employees of the Company in his confidence and told them that they should arrange for payment of at least Rs. 10,000 per month to him from the stores of the Company. To implement this object, from the date of the said arrangement until March 1956, accused Nos. 1 and 2 with the help of accused Nos. 3 to 16--accused Nos. 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 were the employees of the Company, and accused Nos. 8, 11, 14 and 16 were its Managers from time to time; accused No. 6 was its storekeeper, accused No. 12 a clerk, accused No. 15 a cashier, and accused Nos. 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 13 were some of the dealers with the Company entered into many fraudulent transactions, committed offences of criminal breach of trust and forgeries and thereby large amounts, aggregating in all about Rs. 6 lakhs, belonging to the Company were misappropriated between March 14, 1949 and March 20, 1956.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that there was only one conspiracy and that the common object of the conspiracy was to find money for accused Nos. 1 and 2 and to enable them to misappropriate and commit criminal breach of trust of those moneys and that with that end in view the employees of the Company and the dealers acted and in fact achieved that object. In the words of the High Court, "there were different strands of the chain of which the dealers were the end pieces". The High Court also held that there was a prima facie case against accused No. 8, the manager of the Company, and that he should not have been discharged. The High Court confirmed the order of discharge passed by the Magistrate in respect of other accused.

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Presidency Magistrate framing charges and committing all the accused, except accused No. 3, to sessions.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Separate trial is the rule and joint trial is an exception. 2. While Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows a joint trial of persons and offences within defined limits, it is within the discretion of the Court to permit such a joint trial or not, having regard to the circumstances of each case. 3. It would certainly be an irregular exercise of discretion if a Court allows an innumerable number of offences spread over a long period of time and committed by a large number of persons under the protecting wing of all-embracing conspiracy, if each or some of the offences can legitimately and properly form the subject-matter of a separate trial; such a joint trial would undoubtedly prolong the trial and would be a cause of unnecessary waste of judicial time. 4. It would complicate matters which might otherwise be simple; it would confuse accused and cause prejudice to them, for more often than not accused who have taken part in one of the minor offences might have not only to undergo the long strain of protracted trial, but there might also be the likelihood of the impact of the evidence adduced in respect of other accused on the evidence adduced against him working to his detriment. 5. Nor can it be said that such an omnibus charge or charges would always be in favour of the prosecution for the confusion introduced in the charges and consequently in the evidence may ultimately benefit some of the accused, as a clear case against one or other of the accused may be complicated or confused by the attempt to put it in a proper place in a larger setting. 6. A Court should not be overzealous to provide a cover of conspiracy for a number of offences unless it is clearly satisfied on the material placed before it that there is evidence to prove prima facie that the persons who committed separate offences were parties to the conspiracy and they committed the separate acts attributed to them pursuant to the object of the said conspiracy.

Final Decision: The order of the High Court is set aside and the order of the Presidency Magistrate is restored subject to the aforesaid modification.