riminal Appeals Nos
11 3 114 and 190 of 6 1
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated June 16 1961 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Revision Applications Nos 305 and 345 of 1961
J C Bhatt J B Dadachanji 0
C Mathur and Ravinder Narain for the appellants in Cr A No 113161 and respondents Nos
1 to 4 in Cr A No 190 of 1961
KR Chaudhuri for the appellant in Cr A No 11461 and respondent No 5 in Cr A No 190 61
341 H R Khanna and R H Dhebar for the respondents Cr A Nos 113 and 114161 and appellant in Cr A No 19061
November 21
DAYALJ
These three appeals by special leave arise out of a criminal case pending in the Court of the Special judge Poona against the appellants in Criminal Appeals Nos 113 and 114
Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala and Champalal Jhunjhunwala appellants Nos 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No 113 of 1961 are partners in a Firm named Shreeram Ramniranjan
The other two appellants I R Oza and Gajraj Tiwari are the employees of the firm
V A Thomson appellant in Criminal Appeal 114 of 1961 was Assistant Works Manager Timber Inspection  Central Railways Matunga Bombay at the relevant time
The aforesaid firm entered into a contract with the Director General of Supplies and Disposals New Delhi in 1955 for the supply of 13065 tons of bottom boards for railway wagons of certain specified varieties of hard wood to the Central Railway Administration
The total cost for the entire supply was Rs 399556 8 0
The wood was to be supplied at three places in different quantities
630 tons were to be consigned to the District Controller of Stores C W E Matunga Bombay 26 12 tons were to be supplied to the Assistant Controller of Stores Lallaguda and 650 tons were to be supplied to the Assistant Controller of stores Jhansi
Prior to the supply the wood was to be inspected by the Chief Engineer Sleeper Passing Branch Southern Railway Madras or an officer acting for him and the places of inspection were Kallayi Mangalore and Vallapatnam
The first and the last of the places 342 were in the Kerala State
The payments were to be made by the Pay and Accounts Officer Ministry of Works Housing and Supply New Delhi
The procedure to be followed in obtaining the payment was as follows
Immediately after despatch the Constractor could submit his bill and claim 90 of the price
Along with the bill he had to attach the first copy of the inspection note
The balance viz 10 of the price was paid later when two further copies of the inspection note and certain other documents had to be submitted
Subsequent to the acceptance of the tender the District Controller of Stores
 Central Railways C W E Depot Matunga was also added as the Inspection Authority and Inspection Officer for the wood to be supplied to D C 0
section Matunga
Still later the Chief Mechanical Engineer Central Railways Bombay was made the Inspection Authority and the Assistant Works Manager Timber Inspection C W E Central Railways Matunga Bombay was named as the Inspecting Officer
The places of Inspection were also changed to Bombay Calicut and Baliapatam
The period of contract was also extended and the total cost of wood to be supplied was Rs 408741 
The prosecution allegation is that the wood actually supplied was of interior quality that Thomson and other officers issued false inspection notes certifying the quality of the wood to be per specification and on the basis of these false inspection notes the aforesaid Firm received payment of Rs 377771 from the Pay and Accounts Officer in the Ministry of Works Housing and Supply Government of India
The case against the accused appellants was first sent up to the Court of the Special judge in 343 Kerala
He framed six charges against the accused
Charge No 1 was framed against all the accused and was for an offence under section 120 B I P C Charge No 2 was against the two partners of the Firm for an offence under section 420 I P C Charges Nos 3 and 4 were against the two employee appellants for an offence under section 420 read with section 109 1
P C Charge No 5 for a similar offence was against Thomson
Charge No 6 was against Thomson for an offence under section 51d read with section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
The second charge for the offence under section 420 I P C was with respect to the Firm obtaining Rs 141309 for the supply of 521 tons of timber
Charge No 6 stated that Thomson abused his position as a public servant and obtained for the partner appellants on behalf of the Firm pecuniary advantage
This Court transferred the case from the Court of the Special judge Kerala to the Court of the Special judge Poona
The Special judge Poona amended the charges and also added a 7th charge against the four appellants connected with the firm for abetting Thomson in his committing the offence under section 51d read with section 52 of the Prevention of the Corruption Act
Charge No 2 was amended to the effect that the amended charge referred to the supply of the entire quantity of wood ie 13061 tons of wood and to the receipt of Rs 377771  
Charge No 6 was amended inter alia to the effect that Thomson by abusing his position as public servant obtained advantage for himself from the partners of the firm
The accused appellants went in revision to the High Court of Bombay and questioned the legality or propriety of the various charges
The High Court ordered certain minor modifications in the charges with which we are not concerned and restricted charge No 2 to the supply of 521 tons of wood and to the receipt of Rs 1413091 in accordance with the charge originally framed by the 344 Special judge Kerala as the Kerala Court did not have jurisdiction to try the offence committed in respect of the supply of wood to places outside its jurisdiction
The Union of India has filed Criminal Appeal No 190 of 1961 against the High Court s order restricting the charge No 2 to the supply of 521 tons of wood and to the receipt of Rs 141309 odd
The relevant part of the main charge of conspiracy against all the accused may now be quoted That you all between July 1955 and September 1956 at Bombay Baliapatam Kannanore Calicut Ferok Kallayi entered into conspiracy by agreeing among yourselves to commit illegal acts andor acts by illegal means to wit to supply in fulfilment of the contract bottom boards  in inferior jungle wood and not in the species of Aine Kalpine and Haldu as agreed to supply as per contract and tender referred to above to have th e said bottom boards fraudulently passed by accused No 5 by abusing his position as public servant by corrupt and illegal means to get false inspection notes and certificates from accused No 5 and others to the effect that the bottom boards were of the species of Aine Kalpine and Haldu as per species and specifications detailed in the said contract when to your knowledge they were not but were of inferior jungle wood and which inspection notes and certificates were issued by accused No 5 by abusing his position as public servant by corrupt and illegal means to obtain pecuniary advantage for himself and for others ie accused Nos 1 and 2 to induce the Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer in the Ministry of Works Housing and Supply to part with a sum of Rs 377771 as value 345 thereof by claiming in bills supported with inspection notes which acts amount to offence punishable under sections 420109 of the Indian Penal Code and section 52 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code 
It is contended for the appellants in appeal No 113 of 1961 that the obtaining of money by submitting each separate bill amounted to one distinct offence for which a separate charge should have been framed in view of section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the charge as framed is a combination of a number of charges with respect to several offences of cheating committed by obtaining money on the presentation of eighteen or nineteen bills and was therefore against the provisions of section 233 of the Code
It is also contended that the charge for cheating should have been framed against that particular accused who had submitted the bill and obtained money
The High Court considered these objections and held that a schedule giving the details of each item of cheating would sufficiently meet the require ments of law and that the bills were presumably signed by the Firm just as the forwarding letters were and that therefore both the partners could be properly charged for the offence of cheating
The cheating was in pursuance of the conspiracy entered into between the various accused
The salient features of the conspiracy were that in pursuance of the contract for the supply of 1360 12 tons of specified wood inferior wood be supplied and that for the success of the scheme false inspection certificates be obtained from the Inspecting Officers and that such false inspection notes should accompany the bills purporting to be for the supply of wood per specifications
The object of the conspiracy was to obtain the full contract price from the Government 346 on supplying material inferior in quality from that undertaken to be supplied under he contract
Naturally the entire supply could not be made at the same time even if it was to be made at one place
Actually the supply was to be made at three places
The wood inspected at a particular place of inspection could be distributed to the various places of supply
The bills could be for the supply made at the particular time by the Firm to one place alone or to places more than one
It is therefore obvious that the conspiracy entered into by the appellants was not for obtaining diverse amounts by cheating but to obtain the entire contract money by cheating
This circumstance justifies the conclusion that the offence of cheating contemplated by the conspirators was one offence and that was of obtaining by cheating the full amount due under the contract for the material supplied
The charge framed for the offence under section 420 does not contravene section 233 of the Code
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
I P C 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  A gives Z fifty strokes with a stick
Here A may have committed the offence of voluntarily causing hurt to Z by the whole beating and 347 also by each of the blows which make up the whole beating
If A were liable to punishment for every blow he might be imprisoned for fifty years one for each blow
But he is liable only to one punishment for the whole beating
It is to be noted that the whole beating is considered to constitute one offence while each of the blows also amounted to the offence of voluntarily causing hurt
It can be said therefore that while the obtaining of money by cheating on the presentation of an individual bill did constitute the offence of cheating the obtaining of the entire money in pursuance of the terms of the single contract and the single conspiracy entered into also constituted the offence of cheating
When the accused could not be punished with the punishment for more than one such offence it cannot be the intention of law that the accused be charged with each of the offences which were in a way included in the complete offence made up by the entire course of conduct of the accused in pursuance of the conspiracy
Section 233 Cr
PC reads For every distinct offence of which any per son is accused there shall be a separat e charge and every such charge shall be tried separately except in the cases mentioned in sections 234 235 236 and 239 The expression every distinct offence  must have a different content from the expression every offence  or each offence 
A separate charge is required for every distinct offence and not necessarily  for each separate offence
The question is what is meant by every distinct offence   Distinct  means not identical  It stresses characteristics that distinguish while the word 348 separate  would stress the two things not being the same  Two offences would be distinct if they be not in any way inter related
If there be some interrelation there would be no distinctness and it would depend on the circumstances of the case in which the offences were committed whether there be separate charges for those offences or not
Such a view has been the basis of certain decisions by the High Courts and this Court
In Chunnoo V State 1 Kidwai J said atop
797 The use of the word distinct  is great significance and the Legislature having inserted it we must so far as possible give it a meaning and not treat it as redundant
Every distinct offence  cannot be treated as having the same meaning as every offence  The only meaning that the word distinct  can have in the context in which it occurs is to indicate that there should be no connection between the various acts which give rise to criminal liability
If there is such a connection one action is not distinct  from other actions and each of them even if it constitutes an offence does not constitute a distinct  offence
In Bhagat Singh vs The State 2 a person hit two others with a single shot from his gun
Fazl Ali J said at p 375  The word offence  has been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code as meaning any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force  There seems to be nothing wrong in law to regard the single act of firing by the appellant as one offence only
On the other hand we think that it would be taking an extremly narrow and artificial view to split it into two offences
There are several reported cases in which a similar view has been 1 AIR 1954 All 795
1  349 taken and in our opinion they have not been incorrectly decided
 We refer to these cases later
It was further stated at p 376   In Sudheendrakumar Ray V Emperor ILR a person who was chased by two constables had fired at them several times but it seems to have been rightly assumed that the firing did not constitute more than one offence though the point was not specifically raised or decided
 In Empress vs Raghu Rai 1 the accused was convicted of stealing two bullocks by one act of theft
It was held that the offence committed was one
The rationale of the decision could be nothing but that the entire transaction of stealing or the entire action leading to the theft of the bullocks was one act and therefore constituted one offence irrespective of the fact that more than one bullock was stolen
In Poonit Singh vs Madho Bhot 2 a person s furnishing the police with false information against two persons was held to result in one offence under section 182 I P C as the false statement he had made was one though the information conveyed by the statement related to two persons
In John Subarna vs King Emperor 3 a person who asked the villagers to pay certain amount per head for signing their parchas was held to have committed one offence of cheating as he did not ask each individual villager but spoke to them in a body and the contention that he had made as many attempts to obtain money as there were villagers from whom he had
sought remuneration was not accepted
In this case it is clear that the accused s act aimed at obtaining money from all the villagers whom he addressed and that act in its entirely was 1 2 Cal
3 1905 10 C N 520
350 held to constitute one offence even though his asking the villagers in a body could be said to amount to his asking each individual villager for the money and thus to constitute as many offences as there were villagers whom he asked
In Promotha Natha Ray vs King Emperor one charge was framed under section 406 I P C with respect to dealing with several books of accounts
It was held that the books formed one set of account books of the estate were found together in two locked boxes the keys being with the appellant and that therefore they may be fairly regarded as one item of property with which the appellant was dealing in one particular way
It was not accepted that a seperate offence was committed with respect to each of the books
We therefore hold that a single charge for the offence of cheating in the circumstances of the case does not contravene the provisions of section 233 of the Code
This view also disposes of the other objection with respect to charge No 2 it being that with respect to the cheating constituted by the obtaining of money on each bill only that partner should have been charged for that offence who had actually signed that bill
Both the partners conspired to cheat the Government
The bills were as held by the High Court presumably presented on behalf of the Firm and therefore both the partners would be responsible for the obtaining of the money on the presentation of each bill
The charge therefore does not suffer from any defect on this account
The main contention in the appeal by Thomson is that the Special judge Poona was not competent to amend the charge No 6 to the effect that Thomson by abusing his position as a public 11912 351 servant had obtained pecuniary advantage for himself as the sanction given for the prosecution of Thomson did not state that he had abused his position for his personal gain
We do not wish to express any opinion on the merits of this contention as it is still open to the prosecution to lead evidence to the effect that the sanction given for the prosecution was based on facts which referred to his ob taining money for himself It may also be open to the prosecution to urge that it is a matter of inference from the alleged conduct of Thomson that he obtained benefit for himself
Suffice it to say that the trial of Thomson for the charge as framed at present is not illegal
It has been held by this Court in Purushottam Das Dalmia vs The State of West Bengal 1 and L N Mukherjee vs The State of Madras 2 that a Court trying an accused for an offence of conspiracy is competent to try him for all offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy irrespective of the fact that any or all other offences were not committed within its territorial jurisdiction
The special judge Poona could try the appellants with respect to the offence of cheating and abetment thereof in connect ion with the supply of wood to places outside Kerala and for the obtaining of the price of that wood
The charge No 2 as framed by the Special judge is correct
The order of the High Court restricting the charge to the obtaining of Rs 141309 only for the supply of 521 tons of wood is wrong
In the result we dismiss Criminal Appeals Nos 113 and 114 and allow appeal No 190 of 1961
Cr A Nos 113 and 114 dismissed
Cr A No 190 allowed


Summary:
A firm having two partners entered into a contract for the supply of 13065 tons of bottom boards for railway wagons of certain specified varieties of hardwood to the Central Railwaf 339 Administration
The wood was to be supplied at different places in different quantities
The firm supplied wood of inferior quality
Thomson and other officers issued false inspection notes certifying the quality of the wood to be according to specification
On the basis of those false inspection notes the firm received payment of Rs 377771
The accused were charged under sections 109120 B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5 1 d read with s5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and were sent up for trial to the court of the Special judge Kerala
Charges were also framed against them
Howeverthe case was transferred by this court to the court of the Special judge Poona
The latter amended certain charges and also added a new charge against certain appellants
The accused went in revision to the High Court of Bombay and questioned the legality or propriety of various charges
The High Court ordered certain minor modifications in the charges and against that order both the accused and the Union of India came to this court by special leave
It was contended on behalf of the accused that the obtaining of money by submitting each separate bill amounted to one distinct offence for which a separate charge should have been framed in view of s 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the charge as framed was a combination of a number of charges with respect to several offences of cheating committed by obtaining money on the presentation of 18 or 19 bills and was therefore against the provisions of section 233
It was also contended that the charge of cheating should have been framed against that partner who had submitted the bill and obtained money
Held that the expression every distinct offence in section 233 Code of Criminal Procedure has a different content from the expression every offence or each offence and that offences would be distinct if they be not in any way inter related
Chunne vs The State A I R 1954 All 795 approved
Held further that a single charge for the offence of cheat ing in pursuance of conspiracy did not contravene the provisions of section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
The conspiracy entered into by the appellants was not for obtaining diverse amounts by cheating but to obtain the entire contract money by cheating
The offence of cheating contemplated by the conspirators was one offence of obtaining by cheating the full amount due under the contract for the material supplied
While the obtaining of money by cheating on the presentation of an individual bill did constitute the offence of cheating the obtaining of the entire money in pursuance of the terms of the single contract and the single conspiracy entered into also 340 constituted the offence of cheating
When the accused could not be punished for more than one such offence it could not be the intention of law that he be charged with each of the offences which were in a way included in the complete offence made up by the entire course of conduct of the accused in pursuance of the conspiracy
Bhagat Singh vs The State  refered to
Empress vs Raghu Rai  Poonit Singh vs Madho Bhot Cal
270 Joan Subrna vs The King Emperor and Promotha Nath Bay vs King Emperor  approved
Both the partners conspired to cheat the Government
The bills were presumably presented on behalf of the firm and therefore both the partners were responsible for obtaining the money on the presentation of the bills
Hence both of them were rightly charged
A court trying an accused for an offence of conspiracy is competent to try him for all offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy irrespective of the fact that any or all the other offences were committed within its territorial jurisdiction
The charge framed by the Special judge was approved
Purushottam Das Dalmia v The State of West Bengal  and L N Mukherjee vs The State of Madras   followed