Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. These are two appeals by accused Nos. 1 and 2. Appeal No. 672 is an appeal by accused No. 2 and Appeal No. 807 is an appeal by accused No. 1. These are appeals from a judgment of the learned Presidency Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay, by which judgment the learned Magistrate has convicted both the accused of offences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 465 read with Section 34, Section 468 read with Section 34, Section 471 read with Sections 465 and 34 and Section 420 read with Section 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The other charge against the accused was that there was a common object on the part of all of them to forge an auditors' certificate the purport of which was to show that the past imports of the Goldberg India Ltd., for the year 1947-48 received at the port of Bombay were of the value of Rs. 1,15,710 and the purpose of which was to induce the Chief Controller of Imports to grant to the Goldberg India Ltd., an import licence for the amount of Rs. 28,927. The common object of them all further was to use the said forged certificate of the auditors as a genuine document for cheating the Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, and inducing the Chief Controller to grant to the Goldberg India Ltd., an import licence for Rs. 28,927. In other words, the charge was under Section 465 read with Section 34, Section 468 read with Section 34, Section 471 read with Section 34 and Section 420 read with Sections 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Now, the offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code are non-cognizable Offences. An offence under Section 420 of the Code is a congizable offence. Now, Mr. Somjee for accused No. 1 has invited our attention to Section 196-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 186A says that an offence of criminal conspiracy to commit non-cognizable offences cannot be taken cognisance of by a Court unless there is a sanction by the State Government or a Chief Presidency Magistrate. Mr. Somjee contends that since offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 are non-cognizable offences and since an offence of criminal conspiracy to commit such offences cannot be taken cognisance of without the sanction as required by Section 196-A of the Criminal Procedure Code and since no such sanction was obtained from the State Government or the Chief Presidency Magistrate in this case, the trial of the accused was void 'ab initio.' It is true, says Mr. Somjee, that an offence of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is cognizable and the taking of cognisance of that offence by a Court requires no sanction either from the State Government or from the Chief Presidency Magistrate or from any officer. But, Mr. Somjee says that in this case the charge was one composite charge under Section 120-B read with Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 511, that the trial was one and that this is not a case where the trial for an offence under Section 420 could have been severed from the trial for offences under Sections 465. 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, says Mr. Somjee,' since the trial of the accused for an offence of criminal conspiracy to commit offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 was void 'ab initio' for want of sanction, the whole trial was void and bad.

11. This decision was followed in -- 'Paresh Nath V. Emperor', AIR 1947 Cal 32 (B). The decision in 'Ramchandra Rango v. Emperor (A)' is a decision of a Division Bench of our own Court. We must follow that decision and hold that since the object of the accused in this case was to cheat the office of the Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, and thereby induce that office to issue in favour of Goldberg India Ltd., an import licence for Rs. 28,927, that is, since the object of the accused was to commit an offence under Section 420, the taking of cognisance of that offence required no sanction, and since the commission of offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was only a means to that end, the trial was not vitiated simply because no sanction was obtained for prosecuting the accused for an offence of criminal conspiracy to commit non-cognizable offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.