Bakhshish Singh vs State of Punjab

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

This revision petition has been filed by Bakhshish Singh petitioner directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Anandpur Sahib. By virtue of the impugned order the learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking that his case should not be tried jointly.

The relevant facts in brief are that as per the prosecution case the petitioner had forged a No Objection Certificate on 20.4.1988 with intent to commit other offences for the purpose of cheating. He fraudulently used forged No Objection Certification as genuine to cheat other persons. Sukhdev Singh and Amarjit Singh are alleged to have committed offences of forging No Objection Certificate on 11.5.1988 in respect of different vehicles at different places. Similarly, the allegations of forgery for the purpose of cheating and using forged documents as genuine are alleged to have taken place on different dates in respect of different vehicles. The allegation against the petitioner is for forging No objection certificate with respect to vehicle No. UPD2468 whereas the allegations against other accused pertain to forging of No objection Certificate in respect of Vehicle No. USD5203. The dates of the alleged offences qua the petitioner alleged is 20.4.1988 and 3.5.1988 whereas against two other persons the said dated are 11.5.1988 and 27.5.1988.

The petitioner had filed an application with the learned Judicial Magistrate that case against him pertains to a different vehicle and it is a different transaction; therefore, the petitioner should not be tried jointly with Sukhdev Singh and Amarjit Singh. The petition was contested. The learned Judicial Magistrate vide his impugned order rejected the prayer of the petitioner holding that the nature of the offences committed by the petitioner and others is similar. The same has been committed against one agency i.e. Registration Authority, Anandpur Sahib and the evidence is likely to be identical. No prejudice is likely to be caused accordingly. The petition was dismissed.

To appreciate the question in controversy it would be appropriate to refer to the charges that have been framed by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and others and the same read :

"That you accused Bakshish Singh on 20.4.1988 forged no objection certificate with intent to commit of vehicle No. UPD2468 and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 465 IPC and which is within my cognizance.

Secondly, on same time, date and place you accused Bakshish Singh forged the No Objection Certificate of vehicle No. UPD2468 for the purpose of cheating and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC which is within my cognizance.

Thirdly, on 12.2.1988 at Anandhpur Sahib you accused Bakshish Singh fraudulently used the forged abovesaid no objection certificate as genuine which you then knew that the said document to be a forged document and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471 IPC which is within my cognizance.

Fourthly, on 12.2.1988 at Anandpur Sahib you accused Bakshish Singh cheated the Registering Authority (Motor) Anandpur Sahib by dishonestly inducing the said authority to sign and sealed a registration certificate which is capable of being converted into a valuable security and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC which is within my cognizance.

Fifthly, you accused Sukhdev Singh and Amarjit Singh on 11.5.1988 you both accused forged No Objection Certificate of vehicle No. USD 5203 with intent to commit fraud that is to prepare R.C. with new number and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 465 IPC which is within my cognizance.

Sixthly, you both accused Sukhdev Singh and Amarjit Singh you forged the no objection certificate in respect of vehicle No. USD 5203 intending that the said document shall be used for purpose of cheating and thereby you committed an offence punishable under Section 468 IPC which is within my cognizance.

Seventhly, that on 27.5.1988 you both accused Sukhdev Singh and Amarjit Sigh at Anandpur Sahib fraudulently used as genuine the above said no objection certificate which you then knew the said document to be a forged document and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 471 IPC which is within my cognizance.

Eighthly, that on 27.5.1988 at Anandpur Sahib you both accused Sukhdev Singh and Amarjit Singh cheated the Registering Authority (Motor) Anandpur Sahib dishonestly inducing the said registration authority to sign and seal a registration certificate which is capable of being converted into a valuable security and thereby you both accused committed an offence under Section 420 IPC which is within my cognizance."

It is apparent from the aforesaid that as against the petitioner the charge framed is with respect to forging No objection certificate pertaining to vehicle No. UPD 2468 on 20.4.1988 and also for purposes of cheating on 12.2.1988. It is alleged that the petitioner used the forged certificate as genuine and also cheated the Registering Authority, Anandpur Sahib. The charges also indicate that as against Sukhdev Singh and Amarjit Singh the offence pertains to a different vehicle and purported to have been committed on different date unconnected with that of the petitioner.

In this background one can conveniently refer to Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which holds the key to the question as to what persons can be charged jointly. The said provision unfolds itself in the following words :

"223. What persons may be charged jointly :

The following persons may be charged and tried together, namely :

(a) persons accused of the same offence committed in the course of the same transaction;

(b) persons accused of an offence and persons accused of abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence;

(c) persons accused of more than one offence of the same kind, within the meaning of Section 219 committed by them jointly within the period of twelve months;

(d) persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction;

(e) persons accused of an offence which includes theft, extortion, cheating, or criminal misappropriation, and persons accused of receiving or retaining, or assisting in the disposal or concealment of, property possession of which is alleged to have been transferred by any such offence committed by the firstnamed persons, or of abetment of or attempting to commit any such lastnamed offence;

(f) persons accused of offences under Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or either of those sections in respect of stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by one offence;

(g) persons accused of any offence under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) relating to counterfeit coin and persons accused of any other offence under the said Chapter relating to the same coin, or abetment of or attempting to commit any such offence; and the provisions contained in the former part of this Chapter shall, so far as may be, apply to all such charges :

Provided that where a number of persons are charged with separate offences and such persons do not fall within any of the categories specified in this section, the Magistrate may, if such persons by an application in writing, so desire, and if he is satisfied that such persons would not be prejudicially affected thereby, and it is expedient so to do, try all such persons together."

The purpose of framing of the charges is well known. It is to tell an accused person as precisely and concisely as possible as of the matter with which he is charged. It must convey to him with specific clear things and certainty as to what the prosecution intends to prove against him and of which he will have to clear himself. It is to give full notice of the offence charged against him. The circumstances under which two or more persons may be charged together under Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been enumerated above. Each individual offender when offence is not during the same transaction and not covered under any other provision of law can insist that his case be tried separately. In the eyes of law, each offender is a separate integer. He may have incompatibility of interest in the matter of criminal nature; therefore, prejudice can be caused when different persons involved with respect to different transactions are tried together pertaining to offences purported to have been committed on different dates. Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not give sanction for such joint trials.

Learned counsel for the state urged that provisions of Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are only enabling and that the Court has discretion for joint trial. There is no controversy in principle with this argument. Needless the provisions would be enabling but it is one thing to say that joint trial is legal and another if it is proper. Propriety cannot be inter mixed with legality once it is noticed that the offences though similar pertain to different vehicles and alleged to have been committed by different persons on different dates. It will be totally improper to try them together.

It has already been noticed above that the accused persons are different. The offences were not committed during the same transaction. It is not the prosecution case that they were committed in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy. It is also not the prosecution case that they were committed on the same date or pertain to same document or with respect to the same vehicle. They were of different dates; therefore, question of joint trial did not arise. The petitioner is justified when he complains of prejudice.

For these reasons, the revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside.

Nothing said herein would restrain the trial Court from proceeding in accordance with law. As per the directions given above, separate charges can be framed with separate trials to be initiated.