Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The two appellants, along with two others, who have since been acquitted, were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, for various offences, as indicated below. There was a common charge of criminal conspiracy, under S. 120B, IPC, to do, or cause to be done, illegal acts, viz., offences of theft, cheating, forgeries, etc., against all the four accused. Under this head, the allegation was that the four accused agreed, among themselves, to commit theft and pilferage, of Indian and British postal orders and bank cheques, belonging to different persons, which were in transmission, by post and that, after such pilfering, the names of the original payees and the names of the paying post offices were erased and forgery was committed by writing the names of fictitious persons, or the names of some of the accused, and of different post offices. The further allegation was that the accused agreed to use, as genuine, all such pilfered and forged postal orders and cheques, which the accused knew, or had reasons to believe, were forged documents. There was also an allegation that all the accused had also agreed to present, such pilfered and forged postal orders and cheques, for encashment at the post offices and banks at Ajmer and Jaipur, through the two appellants and Yasoda Devi, 4th accused, pretending to be either the original payees or the substituted payees. It was further alleged that the accused had agreed to cheat, or attempt to cheat, the postal L2Sup. CI/68-3 authorities and banks, at Ajmer and Jaipur, by dishonestly inducing them to make payment to the appellants and Yasoda Devi, in respect of the pilfered and forged postal orders and cheques. It Was also stated that the accused committed the various acts, in pursuance of the agreement, regarding the postal orders and cheques, details of which were given under that charge. Appellant Bhanwar Singh was also further charged that, in pursuance of the conspiracy, during October 1956 and December 1957, he committed theft of various postal orders and cheques, belonging to various persons and that he also forged certain postal orders, which were valuable securities, by removing the names of the original payees and inserting his own name and that he thereby cheated the postal authorities at Jaipur, by dishonestly inducing them to deliver certain amounts against such postal orders, which were really payable to a third party, and thereby he committed offences of theft, forgery and cheating, under ss. 380, 467 and 420, I.P.C. There were also certain further charges, for offences punishable under S. 471; and of an attempt to commit cheating in respect of a cheque, punishable under S. 420 read with S. 51 1, IPC. Similarly, against Kishanlal, the 2nd appellant, there were additional charges, framed under ss. 467, 420, 420 read with 511 and 471, I.P.C. Kapoorchand was also charged under ss. 380 and 467 I.P.C., and Yasoda Devi, under ss. 467, 471, 420 and 419 I.P.C.

We have already indicated the offences for which the appellants and the other two accused, who have since been acquitted, were tried. It is enough to note that there was a charge under S. 120B, read with s. 467/471 and 420 IPC. The offences under s. 467 and 471 are non-cognizable, but the offence under s. 420 is a cognizable one for which the punishment could be imprisonment extending to 7 years. Therefore, if the object of the conspiracy, under s. 120B, was to commit a non-cognizable offence, under s. 467 or 471 I.P.C., the obtaining of sanction, from the authorities mentioned in sub-s. (2) of s. 196A, was absolutely necessary, and the absence of such sanction would vitiate the trial, for such offences. Similarly, if the object of the conspiracy, under S. 120B, was to commit a cognizable offence under s. 420 IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term above 2 years, no sanction is necessary, under s. 196A. The question is, whether sanction was necessary in the case before us, when there was a trial for offences under s. 467/471 and 420 IPC, read with S. 120B.

The decision of the Calcutta High Court does not assist the appellant, because the charge that was framed was of criminal conspiracy, under s. 120B read with s. 384 IPC. The object of the conspiracy having been to commit an offence, under s. 384 IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence, it was held by the Calcutta High Court that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence, without the necessary sanction, under s. 196A; and, on this ground, the High Court held that the trial was void. In the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat High Courts, referred to above, it has been held that in respect of a prosecution, for criminal conspiracy, under s. 120B, read with es. 466 and 467 IPC., under which sections the offences are non-cognizable, the consent, contemplated under s. 196 (A) (2) is a pre-requisite to any Court taking cognizance of that offence; it has also been held that sanction is not necessary to prosecute a case of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under s. 420 IPC. The legal proposition, stated as such, is unexceptionable. But it is not clear from the discussion, contained in the two judg- ments, as to what was the object of the conspiracy. It is also to be stated that the said two decisions had no occasion to consider the question whether sanction, under s. 196 (A) (2), Cr.P.C., is still necessary when a trial is held for offences under s. 120B read with s. 466, 467 and 420 IPC., and when the case of the prosecution is that the object of the conspiracy is to commit the offence of cheating, and non-cognizable offences have been committed for the purpose of effecting the object of the conspiracy. We may also point out that our attention has been drawn to the decision of this Court in Madan Lal v. State of Punjab (1). We have gone through that decision and it does not, in our opinion, assist the appellant.

The object of the conspiracy has to be determined, not only by reference to the sections of the penal enactment, referred to in the charge, but on a reading of the charges themselves. On a perusal of the charges, framed against the appellants, we are satisfied that the only object of the conspiracy was to cheat the banks or the post offices, referred to in the charges, which is an offence under S. 420, read with s. 120B, IPC, for which no sanction is necessary. No doubt there are also charges of committing forgery Of valuable security and using such forged documents, which are ,offences under ss.. 467 and 471 IPC, and non-cognizable. But a reading of the charges, as a whole, makes it clear that it is not the case of the prosecution that committing forgery of the Indian and British postal orders or the cheques, or using such forged documents, was the object of the conspiracy. The accused would not he satisfied by merely entering into a conspiracy to forge the postal orders or the cheques, or even to use such forged documents. The forging of the documents and using such forged documents, were only means adopted by the accused for realising the object, of the conspiracy, which was to cheat -the postal and bank authorities, at the places mentioned in the charge, by dishonestly inducing them to part with money. Therefore the trial of these accused, for offences under ss. 120B read with S. 467/ 471 and 420 IPC., and other allied offences, cannot be held to be illegal, on the ground that sanction under S. 196A(2) of the Code, had not been obtained.