Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.S.Sarkaria, J.
Manmohan Singh Johal
Versus
State
Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1965,
Decided On : AUGUST 19, 1968
The Court considered the validity of a consent order issued by the Home Secretary under Section 196-A(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for the prosecution of appellants for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court also examined the substantive offense of forgery under Section 466 of the IPC against one of the appellants, Manmohan Singh Johal.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved 44 accused persons, including Manmohan Singh Johal, who were charged with criminal conspiracy to obtain fraudulently passports from various places in Punjab, insert false and forged entries in them, and use such forged passports and other travel documents for traveling to the United Kingdom. The consent for prosecution under Section 196-A(2) of the CrPC was issued by the Home Secretary, which was challenged by the appellants on the ground that it was not made by the Governor as required by Article 166 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the consent order issued by the Home Secretary was invalid because the Home Secretary did not have the authority to grant consent for prosecution under Section 196-A(2) of the CrPC without reference to the Minister-in-charge of the Department of Criminal Justice. The Court relied on the Rules of Business framed by the Governor under Article 166(3) of the Constitution, which specified that the business of the administration of criminal justice was to be transacted through the Home Secretary, but did not delegate the power to grant consent for prosecution to the Home Secretary. The Court also noted that there was no standing order or other order issued by the Minister-in-charge authorizing the Home Secretary to dispose of such matters without reference to the Minister.
Issues: 1. Whether the consent order issued by the Home Secretary under Section 196-A(2) of the CrPC was valid. 2. Whether the appellant, Manmohan Singh Johal, was guilty of the substantive offense of forgery under Section 466 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the consent order issued by the Home Secretary was invalid because the Home Secretary did not have the authority to grant consent for prosecution under Section 196-A(2) of the CrPC without reference to the Minister-in-charge of the Department of Criminal Justice. The Court relied on the Rules of Business framed by the Governor under Article 166(3) of the Constitution, which specified that the business of the administration of criminal justice was to be transacted through the Home Secretary, but did not delegate the power to grant consent for prosecution to the Home Secretary. The Court also noted that there was no standing order or other order issued by the Minister-in-charge authorizing the Home Secretary to dispose of such matters without reference to the Minister.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the conviction of Manmohan Singh Johal and three other appellants for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B read with Section 471 of the IPC due to the lack of a valid sanction for prosecution. The Court upheld the conviction of Johal for the substantive offense of forgery under Section 466 of the IPC but reduced his sentence from 5 years to 4 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000.
1. Forty-four persons were committed for trial under Section 120-B read with Sections 465, 466, and 471, Indian Penal Code, to the Court of Session, Jullundur, on a charge of criminal conspiracy, having a plurality of objects, namely, to obtain fraudulently passports from persons at various places in the Punjab, to insert false and forged entries and photographs in them, and to use such forged passports and other travel documents for travelling to United Kingdom. Two of them, including Manmohan Singh Johal, were also charged for the substantive offence under Section 466, Indian Penal Code. They were tried by Shri C.G. Suri, Ex-officio Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur. Thirty-six of these accused persons were passengers, hailing mostly from the Jullundur District of Punjab. Out of these passenger accused, the learned trial Judge has acquitted 15, and convicted the rest and sentenced each of them to imprisonment the rising of the Court and a fine of 101.00 Out of the accused catalogued "travel agents or their employees functioning in Jullundur in the year 1959", the learned trial Judge has acquitted accused Nos. 40, 41 and 43 and convicted the rest.
2. Manmohan Singh Johal (Accused No. 37) has been convicted under Section 120-B read with Section 471 of the Penal Code, and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000.00 , and in default of payment of fine, to undergo 2 years further rigorous imprisonment. He has been further convicted under Section 466, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment, with the direction that the sentences on both the counts shall run concurrently.
3. Amrit Lal Kapila (Accused No. 38), has been convicted under Section 120-B read with Section 471 of the Penal Code, and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 , and, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
4. Kashmira Singh (Accused No. 44), has also been convicted.
5. Harbhajan Singh Sanghera (Accused No. 39) has been convicted under Section 120-B read with S. 471, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 , or, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year,
6. A. Joseph Verghese (Accused No. 42), who was the Port Registration Officer at Cochin from where the passenger accused had sailed, has been convicted under Section 120-B read with S. 471, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment.
7. Out of the 26 convicts, only 4, namely, Manmohan Singh Johal, Amrit Lal Kapila, Harbhajan Singh Sanghera, and A. Joseph Verghese have preferred Criminal Appeals 121, 119, 118 and 120 of 1965, respectively, against their conviction, to this Court. This Judgement will dispose of all the four appeals.
8. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are as follows : On the 9th October, 1959, M.V/s. Neptunia sailed from Cochin Port carrying 188 passengers for Genoa. Out of those passengers, 80 had been booked with the Shipping Agents Messrs Volkart Brothers of Cochin by the Ranjit Travel Agency, (hereinafter referred to as the R.T.A.) Jullundur, of which Manmohan Singh Johal, Accused No. 37, was the sole proprietor, Amrit Lal Kapila, Accused No. 38, was the Manager, and Tilak Ram, Accused No. 43, and Kashmira Singh, Accused No. 44, were employees. The last named was working as motor-driver to Manmohan Singh Johal, proprietor of the R.T.A. M.V. Roma belonging to Messrs. Laura Lines sailed from Cochin Port on the 14th October, 1959. Jit Singh (Accused No. 36), who was also booked by the R. T. A. with Messrs. Harrison and Cross-fields, Shipping Agents, sailed by that ship. The passengers of both the aforesaid ships that sailed on the 9th and 14th October, 1959, were cleared at the port by Joseph Verghese (Accused No. 42). Accused Nos. 1 to 35 disembarked at Genoa on or about the 23rd October, 1959, and went by train to London where they were
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
