1. Contractor convicted of cheating and public servant of abetment — Dispute over jurisdiction, sanction for public servant, joinder of trials, and constitutionality of minimum fines. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 189
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
28th October, 1959.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., SYED JAFFER IMAM, J.L. KAPUR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
K. Satwant Singh (in Cr. A. Nos. 100 to 105 of 54) and Respondent in Cr. As. Nos. 124 to 129 of 54, Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab (in Cr. As. Nos. 100 to 105 of 54) and Appellant in Cr. As. Nos. 124 to 129 of 54, Respondent.
with
Petition No. 31 of 1952.
K. Satwant Singh, Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 100 to 105 and 124 to 129 of 1954 and Petn. No. 31 of 1952.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Harnan Singh, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Hardyal Hardy and P. C. Aggarwala, Advocates, with him), for Appellant in Cr. As. Nos. 100 to 105 of 1954, Petitioner in Petition No. 31 of 52 and Respondent in Cr. As. Nos. 124 to 129 of 1954.
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. Kartar Singh Chawla, T. M. Sen and D. Gupta, Advocates, with him), for Respondent in Cr. As. Nos. 100 to 105 of 1954 and Petition No. 31 of 1952 and Appellant in Cr. As. Nos. 124 to 129 of 1954.
Judgment of B. P. Sinha, C. J. and Jafer Imam, Wanchoo and Das Gupta, JJ. was delivered by
Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, D.GUTPA, HAMAM SINGH, HARDYAL HARDY, Kartar Singh Chawla, P.C.AGRAWAL, T.M.SEN
C.K.DAFTARY, D.GUTPA, HAMAM SINGH, HARDYAL HARDY, Kartar Singh Chawla, P.C.AGRAWAL, T.M.SEN
Sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not required for offences like cheating or abetment as they are not performed in the discharge of official duty. Furthermore, a minimum fine does not violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution if the original law allowed an unlimited fine.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Sections 188 and 197 - Jurisdiction and Sanction - Offence of cheating committed within the territory of the court - Posting of cheques from a place not equivalent to delivery of property at that place - Sanction under Section 197 not required for offences of cheating or abetment thereof as such acts cannot be regarded as performed in the discharge of official duty; official status merely provides the occasion for the crime. (Paras 14, 16)
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 - Sections 233 and 239 - Joinder of charges and persons - Persons accused of several offences and persons accused of abetment thereof can be tried together in a single trial - The term "an offence" in Section 239(b) includes the plural as per Section 13 of the General Clauses Act. (Paras 20, 23)
(C) Constitution of India - Article 20(1) - Ex post facto laws - Penalty - A law prescribing a minimum fine does not impose a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under a law where the fine is unlimited - No violation of constitutional protection against ex post facto laws. (Paras 30, 31)
Facts of the case:
A contractor submitted fraudulent claims for works executed in a foreign territory. An officer certified these claims as true, leading to the payment of a large sum of money via cheques. The contractor and the officer were tried jointly by a special tribunal for cheating and abetment. The trial court imposed both ordinary and compulsory fines. The High Court set aside the compulsory fines, citing constitutional restrictions.
Findings of Court:
The trial was held to be within jurisdiction as the misrepresentation and payment occurred within the territory. No sanction was required for the public servant as abetment of cheating is not an official act. The joint trial of the main accused and the abettor for multiple offences was legal. The imposition of a minimum fine under the ordinance did not violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the trial was without jurisdiction due to non-compliance with Section 188 CrPC; whether the absence of sanction under Section 197 CrPC vitiated the trial; whether the joint trial of the accused and the abettor for multiple offences was permissible under Sections 233 and 239 CrPC; and whether a minimum fine under an ordinance violates Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that cheating and its abetment are not acts performed in the discharge of official duty, thus exempting them from the requirement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. It further ruled that Section 239(b) CrPC, read with the General Clauses Act, allows the joint trial of persons accused of multiple offences and their abettors. Regarding Article 20(1), the court reasoned that a minimum fine is not a "greater penalty" than an unlimited fine permitted by the law in force at the time of the offence.
Result: Appeals filed by the accused dismissed; appeals filed by the State allowed and the orders imposing compulsory fines restored.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
- constitutional law
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to jurisdiction under Section 188 CrPC, lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, illegality of joint trial, and violation of Article 20 regarding minimum fines. (Para 12 , 19 , 21 , 29 )
3. Cheating and abetment are not official duties; joint trials for multiple offences are permissible under Section 239 CrPC; minimum fines do not exceed unlimited statutory penalties. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 23 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 37 , 38 )
4. Sanction under Section 197 CrPC is unnecessary for cheating; Section 239(b) CrPC permits joint trials for multiple offences; minimum fines do not violate Article 20's penalty limit. (Para 16 , 23 , 31 )
5. Conviction and sentences upheld; appeals by accused dismissed; appeals by State allowed to restore compulsory fines. (Para 26 , 32 , 41 )
6. Does Section 197 CrPC require sanction for a public servant charged with cheating or abetment?
No. Cheating or abetment of cheating is not regarded as an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty, as there is no reasonable connection between such acts and the performance of official duties. (Para 16 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 )
7. Can multiple persons be jointly tried for several offences and their abetments under Section 239(b) CrPC?
Yes. Under the General Clauses Act, the singular term an offence in Section 239(b) includes the plural. Therefore, persons accused of several offences and those who abetted them can be tried together in a single trial. (Para 19 , 20 , 23 )
8. Does a law imposing a minimum fine violate Article 20(1) if the law in force at the time of the offence allowed unlimited fines?
No. Article 20(1) prohibits penalties greater than those possible under the law at the time of the offence. A minimum fine is not a greater penalty when the original law provided for an unlimited fine. (Para 28 , 30 , 31 )
9. Does posting a cheque from a location constitute delivery of property at that location for determining jurisdiction under Section 188 CrPC?
No. Posting a cheque is not delivery to the recipient at the place of posting; delivery occurs where the recipient receives and encashes the cheque, which determines the place of the offence. (Para 14 )
Judgment
IMAM, J. : These appeals are on a certificate granted by the Punjab High Court and they have been heard together as they arise out of a single judgment of the High Court. In Criminal Appeals Nos. 100 to 105 of 1954 Satwant Singh is the appellant and in Criminal Appeals Nos. 124 to 129 of 1954 the State of Punjab is the appellant.
2. Although in these appeals only questions of law have been urged it is necessary to set out briefly some of the facts which led to the prosecution and conviction of Satwant Singh. As a result of the Japanese invasion of Burma in 1942 the Government of Burma and the Allied forces stationed there were compelled to leave that country. In connection with the evacuation from Burma and the defence of that country, the Government of Burma and the army had to execute certain works such as the construction of roads, repairs and construction of bridges, strengthening and repairing of old tracks and converting railway lines into motor roads. Some of these works were executed by the army and some were entrusted to contractors.
3. After evacuation of Burma its Government was located at Simla. In August, 1942 the Government of Burma advertised inviting claims from contractors who had executed works or had supplied materials in Burma and had not yet been paid. Satwant Singh had worked as a contractor in Burma. He at first submitted a claim for a sum of a little over Rs. 18,000. Later on, he put in further claims the total amount of which ran into several lakhs of rupees. These claims were sent by the Government of Burma to Major Henderson at Jhansi in March and May, 1943 for verification as he was the officer who had knowledge of these matters. This officer certified many of these claims to be correct and sent the papers back to Simla. He did not pass one claim because it was within the knowledge of another officer Mr. Nasee. On the certification of the claims by Henderson, the Finance Department of the Government of Burma sanctioned the same and the Controller of the Military Claims at Kolhapur was directed to pay the amounts sanctioned. On the request of Satwant Singh cheques drawn on the Imperial Bank of India at Lahore were posted to him from Kolhapur and these cheques were encashed at Lahore. In all Satwant Singh was paid Rs. 7,44,865-12-0.
4. Subsequently, suspicions of the Government of Burma were aroused concerning the many claims made on it and it was discovered that many of them, including some of those of Satwant Singh, were false. A police investigation followed which revealed that a large number of claims made by various persons including Satwant Singh in respect of works done for the benefit of the army were false. Satwant Singh was arrested on 12-4-1944, at Ambala and was taken to Lahore. He had also submitted a claim in the name of his wife Surjit who was also arrested. Henderson was arrested at Imphal and brought to Lahore for interrogation.
5. According to the prosecution, Satwant Singh had committed the offence of cheating punishable under S. 420, Indian Penal Code and Henderson had abetted him in the commission of that offence by falsely certifying Satwant Singh s claims to be true, knowing that they were false and thereby had committed an offence punishable under S. 420/109, Indian Penal Code.
6. Satwant Singh having expressed a desire to make a confession, his confession was recorded by a First Class Magistrate on 9-5-1944.
7. There being many cases of acceptance of bribe and criminal breach of trust by public servants and cheating of Government by certain persons and cases similar to that of Satwant Singh, Ordinance No. XXIX of 1943, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, for trial of such cases was promulgated by the Governor-General of India in 1943. Subsequently, this Ordinance was amended by Ordinance XII of 1945. By virtue of a notification issued under the Ordinance as amended the case of Satwant Singh was allotted to the Third Special Tribunal at Lahore for trial with Henderson a
