KANTA BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) THESE four revision petitions arise out of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated October 15, 1973. As they relate to the same case and arise out of one judgment. I find it convenient to dispose them of by a single judgment.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case that in the year 1968 accused petitioner Kishanlal Pahadiya was posted as Accounts Clerk in the Municipal Council, Sri Ganganagar. At that time, Shri Kashmirilal Chhabra was posted as Cashier, Badrinath Yogi as Assistant Cashier, and Sohan Singh as Despatch Clerk in the Municipal Council. On September 18, 1968 Kashmirilal Narang Accountant of that Municipal Council while examining the files of the paid-up vouchers detected that the voucher No. 26 (Ex. P. 2) dated September 3, 1968 has been tampered with and a separate paper had been affixed on the top removing the original. On that paper he found certain alterations and erasures. Suspecting some foul play, he examined the other relevant Cash Books and vouchers and found that one bill pertaining to Kartar Engineering Works was passed on 30-3-1968 for Rs. 3300/-, which was again processed for payment after altering the date from 30-3-1968 to 30-8-1968. By addition of figure 7, the cheque number also appeared to be altered. The Accountant Kashmirilal Narang called all the four accused persons and made enquiries. Sohan Singh told that he drew the cheque on seeing the orders of pre-audit on the vouchers and at the instance of Kishanlal Pahadiya and gave the cheque to him and at his instance took the cheque book to the Commissioner-Administrator for his signatures. Accused Badrinath Yogi informed that the entry in the Cash Book was made on the basis of the counter-foil of the cheque because the Accounts Clerk Kishanlal Pahadiya had told him that the voucher signed by the agent of the firm is lying on his table and he will give it to him as soon as he is able to trace out the same. Kashmirilal Chhabra stated that the relevant entries in the Cash Book were in his hand but were made at the dictation of his assistant Badrinath Yogi Kishanlal Pahadiya admitted that he was over-worked and had asked Sohan Singh to draw a cheque of the voucher but he denied to have committed any offence. The officers of the Municipal Council informally discussed the matter and on September 20, 1968 when the Commissioner of the Municipal Council Shri S. D. Sardiwal was away it was suggested that the amount may be deposited by all the four accused and whenever the real culprit will be traced out the money realised will be returned to them. The accused were assured that the matter will not be pursued in the police. The four accused then filed an application and deposited the money in the Municipal Council. On September 23, 1968 the Municipal Commissioner Shri S. D. Sardiwal lodged a report before the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar giving the details of the matter and requested him that legal action be taken in the matter. The Station House Officer -Kotwali, Manphool Singh, Circle Inspector investigated the matter and arrived at a conclusion that the four accused had conspired and in pursuance of that conspiracy Sohan Singh prepared the voucher Ex. P. 2, by making some alterations and erasures in the same and pasting and cutting of contingency bill on the back of the voucher, that he also prepared the cheque and got it signed and delivered the same to Kishanlal Pahadia. Badrinath Yogi and Kashmirilal Chhabra accused made entries in the register and Kishan Lal Pahadia presented that bearer cheque Ex. P 3 to Ganganagar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd , and got it encashed after signing under the assumed name of Patram. After completion of investigation the charge sheet against the four accused was filed in the Court of Munsiff Magistrate, Ganganagar who committed them to the Court of Sessions, Ganganagar and the case on transfer reached the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, who tried the accused-petitioners for the offences under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined ten witnesses. The accused in their statements under section 342. Code of Criminal Procedure denied all the allegations. One expert Shri M. K. Mehta was examined from the defence side. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record concluded that the entry Gat Varsh Ka Bhugtan' in the voucher Ex P 2 has been written by Sohan Singh and on that basis he prepared the bill Ex. P 3 and at the instance of Kishanlal Pahadia took it to the Administrator and Commissioner for signatures and after obtaining the signatures returned it to Kishanlal Pahadiya. The entries on that basis in the cash book were made by Kashmirilal Chhabra and Badrinath Yogi signed the closing entry of the date. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge held that Kishanlal Pahadia took the cheque Ex. P. 3 to Ganganagar Kendriya Sahkari Bank Ltd , and signing it as Patram obtained the money from the Bank, In view of these findings the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced all the accused for the offences under sections 465, 468 and 467, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them each to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- under each count; in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. He also convicted all the accused for the offences under sections 471 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment under each count. The accused Kishanlal Pahadia was further convicted under section 420, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/-; in default to undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment. It was ordered that the sentences of all the four accused persons will run concurrently. Being aggrieved by that order all the four accused filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, and the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the sentences of all the four accused petitioners for the offences under sections 465, 467, 468,471 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, but held the accused Kishanlal Pahadia not guilty for the offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code and acquitted him of that charge. The learned Sessions Judge referred to the statements of Om Chand and Mishriram, the two bank employees and held that their statements are not believable because Munshiram has resiled from his police statement, where he had deposed that on seeing Patram he would be able to identify him and in the court he denied to be able to identify Patram. The two bank employees stated that they were not knowing Kishanlal Pahadia accused. The learned Sessions Judge discussed in detail the testimony of Diwan S. K. Puri, the hand-writing expert examined by the prosecution and M. K. Mehta hand-writing expert, appearing from the defence side and formed an opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish that the name Patram was written by Kishanlal Pahadia and thereby he drew the amount. Four accused petitioners aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge have filed these revision petitions. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners raised a preliminary objection that the prosecution had not obtained the sanction required as per provisions of section 196-A. Code of Criminal Procedure for prosecuting the accused for the charge under sections 465, 468, 467, 471 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and, therefore, the trial vitiated. According to the learned counsel the charges against the accused Badrinath Yogi, Kashmirilal Chhabra and Sohan Singh were for non-cognizable offences read with section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, and, therefore, the mandatory provisions of section 196-A, Code of Criminal Procedure should have been followed. It has been averred by the learned counsel for Kishanlal Pahadia that since he has been acquitted of the charge under section 420, Indian Penal Code, in the appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, his case also falls in the line with the other accused and the requirement of necessary sanction envisaged by section 196-A, Code of Criminal Procedure was a must in his case also. The learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the position of law that if the object of conspiracy is to commit non-cognizable offences or cognizable offence with a punishment of less than two years sanction from the Government for prosecution is a must, but he has controverted the arguments advanced from the other side on the ground that the charge for the offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code also was there against Kishanlal Pahadia and the ultimate object of the four conspirators was to cheat the bank and the Municipal Council hence it is immaterial whether the three accused Badrinath Yogi, Kashmirilal Chhabra and Sohan Singh have been charged for any cognizable offence or not or Kishanlal Pahadia stands acquitted for the cognizable offence, that is, the offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code. According to the learned Public Prosecutor the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the four accused-petitioners may hold good only for the offence under section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and not for other non-cognizable offences for which there is substantive charge. Learned counsel for the petitioners have advanced elaborate arguments on the merits of the case from both the points of view, that is, to convince that the acts of the accused even as they stand proved do not constitute any criminal act and also from the angle that the object of the alleged acts of the accused even if believed, do not amount to conspiracy for committing a cognizable offence. The learned Public Prosecutor has tried to meet out these arguments, but before entering into the merits of the petitions I would like to dispose of the preliminary objection regarding the sanction envisaged by section 196-A, Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to decide this point, I gave my anxious consideration to the complaint, charges against the accused and the evidence oral and documentary appearing on record. I have also studied the position of law on the point and referred to the various authorities cited from both the sides. In the case of Jadeda Meramanj V. State of Gujarat (1) the accused were charged under section 120-B read with sections 420, 465, 467, 463, Indian Penal Code, and it was held that cognizance of offences under sections 120-B and 420, Indian Penal Code can be taken but the cognizance of sections 120-B, and 465, Indian Penal Code cannot be taken without complying with section 196-A, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) IN the case of Abdul Kadar V. State (2) it has been observed that the legislature added S. 196-A (2) requiring the Section of the Government with a view that there should not be frivolous prosecutions on the ground of criminal conspiracy to commit non-cognizable offences of petty nature. Such conspiracies as have their object only the commission of non-cognizable offences that the sanction of the Government is required. Where commission of non-cognizable offence is merely a means to an end, this is, the commission of cognizable offence, sanction under section 196-A (2) would not be necessary. A case very similar to the one in hand came before this Court in Bhanwar Singh V. The State: S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 254 of 1966, decided on May 9, 1967, and the preliminary objection about sanction under S. 196-A, Code of Criminal Procedure, having not been taken and the trial being void, was raised. In that case two accused Kapoorchand and Bhanwar Singh were constables in the C. I. D, Ajmer Zone and were deputed for censoring the mail along with the other staff of the C. I. D. It was alleged that those two constables while censoring the mail pilfered certain Indian Postal Orders, British Postal Orders and cheques and after erasing the names of the original payees and the names of the post office or the bank where the payment was to be made they inserted their own names or some fictitious names and got the postal orders and cheques encashed at different post offices and banks. Those two accused Kapoorchand and Bhanwar Singh were also charged for having entered into a conspiracy with Kishanlal and Yashoda Devi whose services were employed by them in order to get the moneys from the banks and the Post Offices. Accused Kapoorchand was charged under Ss. 380, 467, and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, and Bhanwar Singh under sections 380, 420, 467/471, 420/511 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. Kishanlal under sections 420. 467/471, 420/511 and 120-B Indian Penal Code and Yashoda Davi under sections 419, 420, 467/471 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. Number of authorities on the point were cited in that case and in view of the facts of that case it was held that by simply committing the theft of the documents from the post office and committing forgery therein by the conspirators the accused persons could not have defrauded the bank of the post office to part with the money, therefore, the dominant object in the case for which they entered into the alleged conspiracy was to commit an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code, by playing fraud on the bank and the post office to get the money by producing the forged documents before them. It was further observed that since the offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code was undoubtedly a cognizable offence punishable with an imprisonment which may extend to seven years and since the dominant object of the conspiracy was to commit an offence under that section no sanction under section 196-A of the Code was necessary and the conspirators could be prosecuted even without sanction of the State Government. Despite those observations it being pointed out that Kapoorchand accused had not been charged with an offence under section 420 read which section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, in his case if he were to be prosecuted for a charge of criminal conspiracy for committing theft and forgery under sections 380, 467 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, sanction was necessary. It was held that Kapoorchand's case stood differently from the other three accused persons and he was entitled to acquittal as the prosecution was launched against him without a proper sanction under section 196-B of the Code. For the other three accused, who were charged under section 420, Indian Penal Code, also, along with the other offences sanction was not held to be necessary. The three accused whose sentences were maintained went in appeal to the Supreme Court and in the case Bhanwar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (3) it was observed that it is necessary to keep in mind that the difference between the object of a conspiracy and the means adopted for realising that object. Even the object of the conspiracy is of cheating is sought to be attained by resort to non-cognizable offences sanction under section 196-B is not necessary. Their Lordships were further pleased to observe that the object of the conspiracy has to be determined not only by reference to the sanction of the penal enactment referred to in the charge but on a reading of the charges themselves. While dismissing the appeals of the three accused-appellants reference was also made to the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the acquittal of Kapoor Chand by this Court on the ground that the trial was void because the necessary sanction had not been obtained under section 196-A of the Code. Their Lordships were pleased to observe that, - "it will be seen that the said accused also was tried for an offence under section 120-B read with section 420, Indian Penal Code, as also certain other charges. As will be seen from the judgment of the High Court it has taken the view that the said accused has not been convicted, by the trial court, for an offence, under section 120-B read with section 20 I. P. C. and hence the trial is vitiated. " The learned Public Prosecutor referred to the case: Union of India V. I. C. Lala etc (4 ). The main discussion in the case relates to the fact whether the offence under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was cognizable or not and it was held to be a cognizable offence. The accused were alleged to have agreed to commit or cause to be committed offences under section 5 (7) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and of cheating punishable under section 420. Indian Penal Code, and those offences having been committed in pursuance of the conspiracy were punishable under section 120 B of the Penal Code read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and section 420, Indian Penal Code. "while holding that sanction is not a necessary in that case their Lordships observed - "it is not necessary to refer to the decisions in Madanlal vs. State of Punjab (1967)3 SCR 439= (A1r 1967 SC 1590) and Bhanwar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (1968) 2 SCR 528= (AIR 1968 SC 709) which are relied upon on behalf of the appellants in the view that we have taken that all the offences with which the accused are charged are cognizable offences, and therefore the question whether charges which require sanction under section 196-A could be tried along with charges which did not require such sanction and the entire charges are vitiated for want of sanction as held by the learned Judge, does not arise. " From this observation it appears that the question whether the charges which require sanction under S. 196-A could be tried along with the charges which did not require such sanction and the entire charges are vitiated for want of sanction, was not touched. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the case, State of Rajasthan vs. Laxman Singh (5) wherein it has been laid down that there is a recognised difference between the object of a conspiracy and the means adopted to realise the object. In that case the accused were tried for the offences under sections 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act andss. l65-A, 420,468, 471 and 477-A read with S 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and the main question for determination before their Lordships was whether the Special Judge of Rajasthan, Jaipur City was right in holding that section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was a non-cognizable offence. Referring to the various authorities it was held by their Lordships that the offence under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a cognizable offence. It was also held that the offences punishable under sections 468, 471, and 477, Indian Penal Code, are non-cognizable but they are alleged to have been committed as a means to cheat the State Government and thereby commit the offence punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code, and as such the provisions of section 196-A, Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, in the present case, the main object of the conspirators can well be inferred to be to cheat the Municipal Council and the Kendriya Sahkari Bank and obtain the money, and, therefore, it is immaterial that the three accused Badrinath Yogi, Kashmirilal Chhabra and Sohan Singh have not been charged for any cognizable offence and Kishanlal Pahadia has been acquitted for the cognizable offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code. The case of Kapoor Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan ( supra ) was decided by Tyagi J. as he then was and the case of State vs. Laxman Singh, just referred to above is a Division Bench decision in which Tyagi J , was a party. In the case of Laxman Singh, the accused were charged for the cognizable offences as well as the non-cognizable offences and therefore so far as the case of the three accused-petitioners Badrinath Yogi, Kashmirilal Chhabra ana Sohan Singh is concerned the authority is not applicable. Relevant it is to note that in Laxmansingh's case also their Lordships have observed as under, - "we have also considered the aspect that the accused persons are charged both for cognizable and non-cognizable offences. There is no doubt that they can be tried together. " This observation indicates that their Lordships were quite alart to the fact that all the accused were charged with cognizable and non-cognizable offences both. Their Lordships referred to the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhanwar Singh V. State of Rajasthan (supra ) and held that in that case the accused were being tried under sections 466 and 467. Indian Penal Code as well along with section 420 read with section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, and the sanction under section 196-A, Code of Criminal Procedure was not necessary to try the cognizable offence under section 420 read with section 120-B, Indian Penal Code and the alleged offeneces with which the accused were charged viz. under section 120 B read with Sections 460 and 471, Indian Penal Code, as they were merely steps taken for the purpose of effecting the main object of conspiracy. From this observation it is clear that the sanction is not necessary when in the cases of conspiracy along with the non-cognizable offences charge under a cognizable offence is also framed. But that does not mean that the decision given in favour of Kapoorchand (supra), that because he was not charge sheeted for the cognizable offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code, which was the main object of conspiracy his trial, under sections 380, 467 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code, was void for lack of sanction, was not held to be good. In view of this principle enunciated by our own High Court the case of Sohan Singh, Kashmirilal Chhabra and Badrinath Yogi stands on a different footing than that of Kishanlal Pahadia as the latter has been charged for the offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code also, though of course in appeal he has been acquitted of that charge. ;