minal Appeal No 137 of 1967
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 9 1967 of the Rajasthan High Court in section B Criminal Appeal No 254 of 1966
Sobhag Mal Jain for the appellants
H R Khanna and R N Sachthey for the respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam J
The two appellants in this appeal by special leave challenge their conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge No 1 Jaipur City for offences under sections 120B 420 420 read with 511 and 467 read with 471 IPC as confirmed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur
Bhanwar Singh has also been convicted for an offence under section 380 IPC Both of them have been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine for these offences and the sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently
The two appellants along with two others who have since been acquitted were tried by the learned Sessions Judge for various offences as indicated below
There was a common charge of criminal conspiracy under section 120B IPC to do or cause to be done illegal acts viz offences of theft cheating forgeries etc against all the four accused
Under this head the allegation was that the four accused agreed among themselves to commit theft and pilferage of Indian and British postal orders and bank cheques belonging to different persons which were in transmission by post and that after such pilfering the names of the original payees and the names of the paying post offices were erased and forgery was committed by writing the names of fictitious persons or the names of some of the accused and of different post offices
The further allegation was that the accused agreed to use as genuine all such pilfered and forged postal orders and cheques which the accused knew or had reasons to believe were forged documents
There was also an allegation that all the accused had also agreed to present such pilfered and forged postal orders and cheques for encashment at the post offices and banks at Ajmer and Jaipur through the two appellants and Yasoda Devi 4th accused pretending to be either the original payees or the substituted payees
It was further alleged that the accused had agreed to cheat or attempt to cheat the postal L2Sup
CI68 3 530 authorities and banks at Ajmer and Jaipur by dishonestly inducing them to make payment to the appellants and Yasoda Devi in respect of the pilfered and forged postal orders and cheques
It Was also stated that the accused committed the various acts in pursuance of the agreement regarding the postal orders and cheques details of which were given under that charge
Appellant Bhanwar Singh was also further charged that in pursuance of the conspiracy during October 1956 and December 1957 he committed theft of various postal orders and cheques belonging to various persons and that he also forged certain postal orders which were valuable securities by removing the names of the original payees and inserting his own name and that he thereby cheated the postal authorities at Jaipur by dishonestly inducing them to deliver certain amounts against such postal orders which were really payable to a third party and thereby he committed offences of theft forgery and cheating under sections 380 467 and 420 IPC There were also certain further charges for offences punishable under section 471 and of an attempt to commit cheating in respect of a cheque punishable under section 420 read with section 51 1 IPC
Similarly against Kishanlal the 2nd appellant there were additional charges framed under sections 467 420 420 read with 511 and 471 IPC Kapoorchand was also charged under sections 380 and 467 IPC and Yasoda Devi under sections 467 471 420 and 419 IPC The case of the prosecution in brief was as follows
Bhanwar Singh and Kapoorchand were constables in the CID Ajmer Zone during 1956 57
In the course of their duties of censoring postal mail these two constables after having opened the mail for the purpose of censoring pilfered certain Indian postal orders and British postal orders and cheques and after erasing the names of the original payees as also the names of the post offices or banks where payment was to be made inserted their own names or some fictitious names and got the postal orders or cheques encashed at different post officers and banks
According to the prosecution Bhanwar Singh and Kapoorchand had entered into a conspiracy with Kishanlal and Yashoda Devi whose services were utilised for getting the moneys from the Banks
The matter came to light when the payees did not receive the cheques or the postal orders intended for them and lodged complaints with the post offices and banks
On investigation the four accused were charged as detailed above
The accused denied the charges levelled against them
The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charge of criminal conspiracy was established against all the four accused The first appellant was found to be the main accused and he was 531 convicted under sections 380 467471 420511 read with section 120B IPC
The second appellant and Yashoda Devi were convicted under sections 467 471 and 420 read with section 120B IPC
Kapoorchand was however convicted only for offences under sections 380 and 467 read with 120 B IPC
The learned Sessions Judge sentenced all of them to various terms of imprisonment and fine for the different offences as stated already
All the four accused challenged their conviction for these offences and the sentence passed against them be before the High Court of Rajasthan
Two contentions were raised by the accused i that the trial held by the Sessions Judge was illegal and void inasmuch as the prosecution had been conducted without obtaining the necessary sanction under section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1 in respect of the charge under sections 467 and 471 read with section 120B IPC ii that the evidence adduced by the prosecution did not establish the guilt of the accused
Both these contentions have been negatived by the High Court so far as the appellants herein are concerned
The High Court however acquitted Yashoda Devi holding that the prosecution evidence id not establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt
The High Court also acquitted Kapoorchand holding that the trial against him was void because the necessary sanction had not been obtained under section 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure
On behalf of the appellants Mr Jain learned counsel raised the same two contentions before us
Counsel urged that inasmuch as the accused were prosecuted for non cognizable offences under sections 467471 read with section 120B IPC the trial was illegal and void inasmuch as the necessary sanction under section 196A of the Code had not been obtained
Learned counsel further urged that the mere fact that the accused were also tried for the offence of cheat ing under section 420 IPC which is cognizable and for which punishment by way of imprisonment extending to 7 years could be imposed and for which no sanction was necessary would not make the trial valid
Under such circumstances the joint trial for cognizable and non cognizable offences was illegal and void
Mr Khanna learned counsel for the State met this conten tion on behalf of the appellant by pointing out that the main object of the conspiracy was to cheat the banks and the post offices by obtaining money from them the forgeries committed by the accused on the cheques and postal orders were only incidental to achieve the main object of the conspiracy viz to commit the offence under section 420 IPC
Under those circumstances Mr Khanna pointed out it was not necessary to obtain sanction under section 196A of the Code and therefore there was no illegality
which would vitiate the trial held by the Sessions Judge
532 We have already indicated the offences for which the appellants and the other two accused who have since been acquitted were tried
It is enough to note that there was a charge under section 120B read with section 467471 and 420 IPC
The offences under section 467 and 471 are non cognizable but the offence under section 420 is a cognizable one for which the punishment could be imprisonment extending to 7 years
Therefore if the object of the conspiracy under section 120B was to commit a non cognizable offence under section 467 or 471 IPC the obtaining of sanction from the authorities mentioned in sub section
2 of section 196A was absolutely necessary and the absence of such sanction would vitiate the trial for such offences
Similarly if the object of the conspiracy under section 120B was to commit a cognizable offence under section 420 IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for a term above 2 years no sanction is necessary under section 196A
The question is whether sanction was necessary in the case before us when there was a trial for offences under section 467471 and 420 IPC read with section 120B In the instant case it is admitted that no sanction was ob tained
In The State of Andhra Pradesh vs Kandimalla Subbaiah1 the question arose before this Court whether sanction under section 196A of the Code was necessary when there was a trial for offences under section 120B read with sections 466 467 and 420 IPC
It was argued on behalf of the State that since the object of the conspiracy was to cheat the Government ie to commit an offence under section 420 IPC and as the offences under sections 466 and 467 were only means to that end the trial was not vitiated simply because no sanction was obtained for prosecuting the accused for offences of criminal conspiracy to commit non cognizable offences under sections 466 and 467 IPC
But in that decision this Court did not express any opinion on this point as the matter was sent back to the trial Court for framing fresh charges and proceeding with the trial after observing that it was for the Government to consider whether it should accord sanction for prosecution of non cognizable offences assuming that such sanction was necessary
The question that was thus left open in that decision arises for consideration now in the instant case before us
On behalf of the appellant reliance has been placed on three decisions in support of the contention that under such circumstances the trial is illegal and void
Those decisions are Subbaiah In re2 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Jadeda Meramanji vs State of Gujarat3 of the Gujarat High Court and Nibaran Chandra vs Emperor4 of the Calcutta High Court
1 3 2 ILR 4 AIR 1929 Cal
533 The decision of the Calcutta High Court does not assist the appellant because the charge that was framed was of criminal conspiracy under section 120B read with section 384 IPC
The object of the conspiracy having been to commit an offence under section 384 IPC which is a non cognizable offence it was held by the Calcutta High Court that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence without the necessary sanction under section 196A and on this ground the High Court held that the trial was void
In the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat High Courts referred to above it has been held that in respect of a prosecution for criminal conspiracy under section 120B read with es
466 and 467 IPC under which sections the offences are non cognizable the consent contemplated under section 196 A 2 is a pre requisite to any Court taking cognizance of that offence it has also been held that sanction is not necessary to prosecute a case of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under section 420 IPC
The legal proposition stated as such is unexceptionable
But it is not clear from the discussion contained in the two judg ments as to what was the object of the conspiracy
It is also to be stated that the said two decisions had no occasion to consider the question whether sanction under section 196 A 2 Cr
PC is still necessary when a trial is held for offences under section 120B read with section 466 467 and 420 IPC and when the case of the prosecution is that the object of the conspiracy is to commit the offence of cheating and non cognizable offences have been committed for the purpose of effecting the object of the conspiracy
We may also point out that our attention has been drawn to the decision of this Court in Madan Lal vs State of Punjab 1
We have gone through that decision and it does not in our opinion assist the appellant
The view of the various High Courts to which we will refer presently and with which view we agree is that no sanction is necessary under section 196A2 Cr
PC when the object of the conspiracy is to commit the offence of cheating 420 IPC but forgery of documents 467 IPC and similar non cognizable offences are also committed as merely steps taken by one or other of the accused for the purpose of effecting the main object of the conspiracy
A trial under such circumstances for offences under section 120B read with section 467471 and 420 IPC without obtaining sanction is neither illegal nor void
It is necessary to keep in mind the difference between the object of a conspiracy and the means adopted for realising that object
Even if the object of the conspiracy viz of cheating is 1  534 sought to be attained by resort to non cognizable offences as in the case before us sanction under section 196A of the Code is not necessary
This principle emerges from the following decisions Ramaohandra Rango vs Emperor1 Durgadas Tulsiram vs State2 Abdul Kadar vs State3 Paresh Nath vs Emperor4 Golam Rahman vs The King6 Kannan In re6 and Vadlamudi vs State of AP 7
The object of the conspiracy has to be determined not only by reference to the sections of the penal enactment referred to in the charge but on a reading of the charges themselves
On a perusal of the charges framed against the appellants we are satisfied that the only object of the conspiracy was to cheat the banks or the post offices referred to in the charges which is an offence under section 420 read with section 120B IPC for which no sanction is necessary
No doubt there are also charges of committing forgery Of valuable security and using such forged documents which are offences under sections 467 and 471 IPC and non cognizable
But a reading of the charges as a whole makes it clear that it is not the case of the prosecution that committing forgery of the Indian and British postal orders or the cheques or using such forged documents was the object of the conspiracy
The accused would not he satisfied by merely entering into a conspiracy to forge the postal orders or the cheques or even to use such forged documents
The forging of the documents and using such forged documents were only means adopted by the accused for realising the object of the conspiracy which was to cheat the postal and bank authorities at the places mentioned in the charge by dishonestly inducing them to part with money
Therefore the trial of these accused for offences under sections 120B read with section 467 471 and 420 IPC and other allied offences cannot be held to be illegal on the ground that sanction under section 196A2 of the Code had not been obtained
Before closing the discussion on this point it is necessary to refer to the reliance placed by the counsel for the appellants on the acquittal by the High Court of Kapoorchand on the ground that the trial was void because the necessary sanction had not been obtained under section 196A of the Code
It will be seen that the said accused also was tried for an offence under section 120B read with section 420 IPC as also on 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 120B read with section 420 IPC and hence the trial is vitiated for lack of sanction
1AIR 1939 Bom129
2 AIR 1955 Bom
2AIR 1964 Rom133
4 AIR 1947 Cal
5AIR 6 1949 2 MLJ Short Notes 7AIR p 52 Crl
MP 26861949 535 Mr Khanna learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the said accused was also tried for the offence of cheating but he was convicted only for certain other offences and in this connection he referred us to the finding of the trial Court that all the accused were guilty of the offence of cheating also
It is not necessary to pursuematter further because it Will be seen from the judgment of the trial Court that the said accused was also prosecuted for anoffence under section 120 B read with section 420 IPC
In view of what is stated above the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellants has to be rejected
So far as the second contention is concerned that really relates to merits
Both the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court have very elaborately gone into the evidence regarding the appellants and have found them guilty of the offences for which they were punished
We do not see any error committed by the High Court or the Sessions Judge in the appreciation of the evidence in the case and there is no justification for any interference by this Court
The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed
GC Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellants along with two others were charged with having entered into a criminal conspiracy in pursuance of which postal orders and cheques in the course of transit by post were pilfered and after various alterations being made therein were encashed at post offices and banks
The charges inter alia were under sections 467471 read with section 120 B and a 420 read with section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code
The Sessions Judge convicted all the four accused but the High Court maintained the conviction only of the two appellants
In appeal before this Court the appellants urged that inasmuch as the accused were prosecuted for non cognizable offences under sections 467471 read with section 120 B IPC the trial was illegal and void as the necessary sanction under section 196 A2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been obtained
It was further urged that the mere fact that the accused were also tried for the offence of cheating under section 420 IPC for which no sanction was required would not make the trial valid
Under these circumstances it was contended that the joint trial for cognizable and non cognizable offences was illegal and void
HELD  It is necessary to keep in mind the difference between the object of a conspiracy and the means adopted for realising that object
No sanction is necessary under section 196 A2 Cr
PC when the object of the conspiracy is to commit the offence of cheating 420 IPC but forgery of documents 467 IPC and similar non cognizable offences are also committed as merely steps taken by one or other of the a for the purpose of effecting the main object of the conspiracy
533 F H The object of the conspiracy has to be determined not only by reference to the sections of the penal enactment referred to in the charge but on a reading of the charges themselves
The charges against the appellants showed that the only object of the conspiracy was to cheat the banks or the post offices referred to in the charges which is an offence under section 420 read with section 120 B IPC for which no sanction is necessary
The forging of the documents and usuing such forged documents were only means adopted by the accused for realising the aforesaid object
Therefore the trial of the accused in the present case for offences under sections 120 B read with sections 467471 and 420 IPC and other allied offences cannot be held to be illegal on the ground that sanction under section 196 A2 of the Criminal Procedure Code had not been obtained
534 B E State of Andhra Pradesh vs Kandimala Subbaiah Ramchandra Rango vs Emperor AIR 1939 Bom
129 Durgadas Tulsiram vs State AIR 1955 Bom 82 Abdul Kadar vs State AIR 1964 Bom
133 Paresh Nath vs Emperor AIR 1947 Cal
32 Golam Rahman 528 529 Notes p 52 Vadlamudi vs State of AP AIR 1961 AP 448 referred to
Subbaiah In re  ILR  Jadeda Meramanji vs State of Gujarat 19632 Cr LJ 713 Nibaran Chandra vs Emperor AIR 1929 Cal
754 and Madan Lal vs State of Punjab   distinguished