Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(5) Nothing contained in this section shall affect section 71 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860). The expression “more offences” used in Section 220(1) Cr.P.C. ibid, would in a given case include more offences of the same kind committed in the course of the same transaction or more offences of different kind committed in the course of the same transaction. Section 220(5) saves Section 71 IPC, which reads as follows :

“71. Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such offences, unless it be so expressly provided.
Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or where several acts, of which http://www.judis.nic.in one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence, the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries him could award for any one of such offences.“ At this juncture, it may be profitable to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala and Others Vs. Union of India and Another (AIR 1963 SC 1620), where Section 71 IPC qua the offence of misappropriation has been extensively dealt with. The Court opined as under :
“12.There is another way of looking at the same question. The obtaining of money for each bill supported by false inspection note, amounted to the offence of cheating in pursuance of the conspiracy. All such individual offences, on the basis of the various bills, were of the same kind as the single offence of obtaining the total amount as a result of the presentation of the various bills and in view of Section 71 IPC, the accused could not be punished for more than one of such offences it being provided that “‘where anything which is an offence is made up of parts any of which’ is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished for more than one such offence unless it be so expressly provided”. Illustration (a) explains this provision and is:

15. As alluded to above, all the 30 victims joined the chit scheme floated by the petitioner and therefore, the monies recieved by the petitioner from all of them were in the course of the same transaction and therefore, Section 219 Cr.P.C. will not apply and Section 220 Cr.P.C. will apply. However, in view of Section 212 Cr.P.C. read with Section 71 IPC, there cannot be 30 http://www.judis.nic.in charges under Section 406 IPC and the petitioner punished for each charge. The amounts collected from various victims for the period of one year from 04.04.2002 to 03.04.2003 was Rs.1,80,000/- and the amount collected for the period of one year from 04.04.2003 to 06.10.2003 from various persons amounts to Rs.1,20,000/-. Thus, the charge can only be for the gross amount for each year. Therefore, the trial Court was right in framing two charges comprising 30 occurrences in the aggregate. The first charge under Section 406 IPC was for the gross amount of Rs.1,80,000/- for the period from 04.04.2002 to 03.04.2003 and the second charge was for the gross amount of Rs.1,20,000/- for the period from 04.04.2003 to 06.10.2003.