Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than [four year] but which may extend to [ten years] and shall also be liable to fine."

9. We find that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah V/s. The Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr." (2013) 6 SCC 348, shows that in respect of the alleged murder of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi on 26.11.2005 and 29/30.11.2005 respectively, one charge sheet came to be filed on 23.07.2010. About subsequent killing of an associate of Sohrabuddin namely Tulsiram Prajapati on 28.12.2006, another charge sheet was filed on 04/09/2012. Charge sheet dated 23.7.2010 filed by the CBI in the first FIR, the CBI had mentioned that the killing of Tulsiram Prajapati was a part of the very same conspiracy. The Apex Court has, in this background, observed that a second FIR for an offence or different offences committed in the course of the same transaction is not only impermissible but it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. It held that the killing of Tulsiram Prajapati was a part of the same series of acts in which Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi have been killed.

"38. Mr Raval, learned ASG, by referring T.T. Antony submitted that the said principles are not applicable and relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case as the said judgment laid down the ratio that there cannot be two FIRs relating to the same offence or occurrence. The learned ASG further pointed out that in the present case, there are two distinct incidents/occurrences, inasmuch as one being the conspiracy relating to the murder of Sohrabuddin with the help of Tulsiram Prajapati and the other being the conspiracy to murder Tulsiram Prajapati -- a potential witness to the earlier conspiracy to murder Sohrabuddin. We are unable to accept the claim of the learned ASG. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid proposition of law making registration of fresh FIR impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution is reiterated and reaffirmed in the following subsequent decisions of this Court: (1) Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2) Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (3) Chirra Shivraj v. State of A.P., and (4) C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. In C. Muniappan this Court explained the "consequence test" i.e. if an offence forming part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR then offences covered by both the FIRs are the same and, accordingly, the second FIR will be impermissible in law. In other words, the offences covered in both the FIRs shall have to be treated as a part of the first FIR."