Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No.898/2015 vs . on 12 May, 2015
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
ORDER
1. S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.898/2015
Parminder Singh
vs.
Union of India Through CBI
2. S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.1200/2015
Praveen Kumar
vs.
Union of India Through CBI
3. S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.1201/2015
Surya Bhan
vs.
Union of India Through CBI
4. S.B.CR. MISC. PETITION NO.620/2015
Rahul Kumpawat
vs.
Union of India Through CBI
Date of Order : 12.05.2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Mr Mahaveer Bishnoi ]
Mr Nishant Bora ]
Mr Prabhat Ojha ], for petitioners
Mr Panney Singh, Special PP for CBI
BY THE COURT:
These criminal misc. petitions under section 482 CrPC have been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the order 2 dated 20.02.2015 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (C.B.I.Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Cr. Case No.1/2014, whereby the trial court has dismissed the applications filed on behalf of the petitioners for consolidating the criminal case Nos. 01/2004, 2/2004, 80/2004, 81/2004, 82/2004, 83/2004, 84/2004, 85/2004, 86/2004, 414/2004, 415/2004, 416/2004, 417/2004, 418/2004, 500/2004, 501/2004, 502/2004, 503/2004, 504/2004, 505/2004, 506/2004 and 507/2004.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that FIR No.RC JDH 2002-A 0005 was registered on 04.04.2002 by the Anti Corruption Bureau, CBI, Jodhpur Branch for the offences punishable under section 120-B read with sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI after conducting investigation into the allegations levelled in the above mentioned FIR has filed 22 separate charge- sheets before the trial court. It is contended that all the 22 charge-sheets filed 3 by the CBI are arising out of the same FIR and, therefore, as per the provisions of sub- section (1) of section 220 of CrPC, all the charge-sheets should be consolidated and tried together. It is contended that the trial court has illegally rejected the application filed by the petitioners while observing that since the offences have been committed by more than one persons and number of the accused is more than one, the same cannot be consolidated. It is contended that the separate charge-sheets filed by the CBI against the petitioners are arising out of one FIR only and are in relation to one transaction only, therefore, the trial court was wrong in holding that since more than one persons have committed the offences and more than one persons are the accused, all the cases cannot be consolidated.
Mr Panney Singh, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of CBI has also contended that 22 separate charge- sheets filed by the CBI against the petitioners are arising out of one FIR only and he has no objection if all the cases are consolidated and tried together. 4
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
It appears that CBI has registered the FIR No.RC JDH 2002-A 0005 against the petitioners and other accused-persons while alleging that Shri Parminder Singh, Techical- III and Shri Rahul, Clerk, LIC Housing Finance, Nai Sarak, Jodhpur have abused their official positions and entered into a criminal conspiracy with each other and many other Railways employees during the year 2000-2001 and prepared forged salary certificates of co-accused persons and some unknown persons and obtained loans from LIC Housing Finance and Bank of Baroda Housing Finance for the said persons. However, after concluding the investigation in respect of the allegations levelled in the above- mentioned FIR, the CBI has submitted 22 separate charge-sheets against the petitioners.
The CBI has also not disputed the fact that all the 22 charge-sheets have been filed by it in relation to the allegations levelled in the FIR No.RC JDH 2002-A 0005. It is noticed that the CBI has filed separate 5 charge-sheets against the petitioners while segregating each individual case, where the petitioners have prepared forged documents and procured the loan facility from the financial institution. The sum and substance of the charges against the petitioners is to the effect that they have prepared forged salary certificates of several employees of the Northern Railway Jodhpur and obtained the loans from the LIC Housing Finance and Bank of Baroda Housing Finance for the said persons.
Section 220 CrPC reads as under:
"220. Trial for more than one offence.-- (1) If, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
(2) When a person charged with one or more offences of criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of property as provided in sub-section (2) of section 212 or in sub-section (1) of section 219, is accused of committing, for the purpose of facilitating or concealing the commission of that offence or those offences, one or more offences of falsification of accounts, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.
(3) If the acts alleged constitute an offence 6 falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.
(4) If several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, or such acts.
(5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect section 71 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 )."
As per sub-section (1) of section 220 of Criminal Procedure Code, if a person is guilty of commission of series of acts, which are so connected together as to form the same transaction and during that course that if such person has committed more offences than one, then he may be charged and tried at one trial for every such offence.
In the present case, though
accused-persons are guilty of preparing
several forged salary certificates on
different dates and are also guilty of
obtaining housing loans in the name of
7
different persons on different dates but the actions of the accused-persons are so related to one another so as to result in one continuous action and it can be held that series of acts committed by the accused- persons were from same transaction only.
In view of above discussions, these criminal misc. petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 20.02.2015 is quashed. The applications filed by the petitioners for consolidating the 22 criminal cases are also allowed. The trial court is directed to consolidate the criminal case Nos. 01/2004, 2/2004, 80/2004, 81/2004, 82/2004, 83/2004, 84/2004, 85/2004, 86/2004, 414/2004, 415/2004, 416/2004, 417/2004, 418/2004, 500/2004, 501/2004, 502/2004, 503/2004, 504/2004, 505/2004, 506/2004 and 507/2004 and thereafter to proceed further.
Stay petitions stand disposed of.
[VIJAY BISHNOI],J.
m.asif/-