Case: Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India &amp; Others

at and would be dealt with as soon as that jurisdiction can properly claim the power to so, The conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same effect as in India, when part of the acts, pursuant to the agreement are agreed to be finalised or done, attempted or even frustrated and vice verse 26. In K. Satwant Singh v. State of Punjab ( 1960 (2) SCR 89 : 1960 AIR(SC) 266 : 1960 (66) CrLJ 410) a Constitution Bench of this Court was to consider as to when Section 188 of the Code would be applicable to a case. The facts therein was that the appellant had cheated the Government of Burma whose office was at Simla punishable under Section 420 IPC. The accused contended that the part of the act was done at Kohlapur where payment was to be made and on that basis the court at had no jurisdiction to try the offence without prior sanction of the political agent. Considering that question this Court held that if the offence of cheating was committed outside British India, the sanction would be necessary but on facts it was held that ".... It seems to us, on the facts established in this case, that no part of the offence of cheating was committed by the appellant outside British India. His false representation to the government of Burma that money was due to him was at a place in British India which induced that Government to order payment of his claims. In fact he was paid at Lahore at his own request by means of cheques on the Branch of the Imperial Bank of India at Lahore, The delivery of the property of the Government of Burma, namely, the money was made at Lahore, a place in British India, and we cannot regard, in the circumstances of the present case, the posting of the cheques at Kohlapur either as delivery of property to the appellant at Kohlapur or payment of his claims at Kohlapur. The entire argument founded on the provisions of Section 188 of the Code, therefore, fails." * Far from helping the appellant the ratio establishes that if an offence was committed in India the need to obtain sanction under Section 188 is obviated. In Purushottamdas Dalmia v. State of W. B. ( 1962 (2) SCR 101 : 1961 AIR(SC) 1589 : 1961 (2) CrLJ 728 This Court, when the appellant was charged with offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 466 and 477, the appellant contended that offence of conspiracy was entered into at Calcutta, the offences of using the forged documents was committed at Madras. Therefore the court at Calcutta had no jurisdiction to try the offence under Section 471 read with Section 466 IPC, even though committed in pursuance of the conspiracy and in course of the same transaction. This Court held that the desirability of trying the offences of all the overt acts committed in pursuance of a conspiracy together is obvious and Sections 177 and 239 of the Code leave no manner of doubt that the court which has the jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy has also the jurisdiction to try all the overt acts committed in pursuance of it even though outside its territorial jurisdiction. In L. N. Mukherjee v. State of Madras ( 1962 (2) SCR 116 : 1961 AIR(SC) 1601 : 1961 (2) CrLJ 736) it was further held that the court having jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy has also the jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy has also the jurisdiction to try the offence of criminal conspiracy even though it was committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. This view was further reiterated in R. K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration ( 1963 (1) SCR 253 : 1962 AIR(SC) 1821 : 1962 (2) CrLJ 805) and Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India Therein it was held that the court trying an accused for offence of conspiracy is competent to try him for offences committed in pursuance of that conspiracy irrespective of the fact whether or not overt acts have been committed within its territorial jurisdiction. The charges framed therein under Section 409 read with Sections 120-B 420 IPC and Section 5(1) (D) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were upheld 27. Thus we hold that sanction under section 188 is not a condition precedent to take cognizance of the office. If need be it could be obtained before trial begins. Conspiracy was initially hatched at Chandigarh and though itself is a completed offence, being continuing offence, even accepting appellants case that he was at Dubai and part of conspiracy and overt acts in furtherance thereof had taken place at Dubai and partly at Chandigarh and in consequence thereof other offences had ensued, since the offences have been committed during the continuing course of transaction culminating in cheating PNB at Chandigarh, the need to obtain sanction for various offences under proviso to Section 188 is obviated. Therefore, there is no need to obtain sanction from Central Government. The case may be different if the offences were committed outside India and are completed in themselves without conspiracy. Perhaps that question may be different for which we express no opinion on the facts of this case. The ratio in Fakhrulla Khan 1935 AIR(Mad) 326 : 68 MLJ 415 : 1935 MWN 325 ) has no application to the facts in this case. Therein the accused were charged for offences under Sections 420, 419, 467 and 468 and the offences were committed in native State, Mysore, As a result the courts in British India i.e. Madras province had no jurisdiction to try the offence without prior sanction Equally in Verghese case the offences charged under Section 409 IPC had also taken place outside British India Therefore, it was held that the sanction under Section 188 was necessary. The ratio in Kailash Sharma case is not good at law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]Therefore, the provisions in Chapter VIII are elastic and not peremptory. In consequence therewith Sections 218 to 223 of the Code would also deal with exceptions engrafted in the Code. Therefore, they do permit inquiry or trial of a particular offence along with other offences at a common trial in one court so that the court having jurisdiction to try an offence gets jurisdiction to try other Offence committed or consequences thereof have ensued. The procedure is handmaid to substantive justice, namely, to bring the offenders to justice to mete out punishment under IPC or special law as the case may be, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code or special procedure under that Act constituting the offence13. Thus, this Court, though not in the context of jurisdictional issue, held that the agreement though not illegal at its inception would become illegal by subsequent conduct and an agreement to do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means, must be viewed as a whole and not in isolation. It was also implied that the agreement shall be continuing till the object is achieved. The agreement does not get terminated by merely entering into an agreement but it continues to subsist till the object is either achieved or terminated or abandoned24. Thus, an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or legal acts by illegal means is criminal conspiracy. If the agreement is not an agreement to commit an offence, it does not amount to conspiracy unless it is followed up by an overt act done by one or more persons in furtherance of the agreement. The offence is complete as soon as there is meeting of minds and unity of purpose between the conspirators to do that illegal act or legal act by illegal means. Conspiracy itself is a substantive offence and is distinct from the offence to commit which the conspiracy is entered into. It is undoubted that the general conspiracy is distinct from number of separate offences committed while executing the offence of conspiracy. Each act constitutes separate offence punishable independent of the conspiracy. The law had developed several or different models or techniques to broach the scope of conspiracy. One such model is that of a chain, where each party performs even without knowledge of the other a role that aids succeeding parties in accomplishing the criminal objectives of the conspiracy. An illustration of a single conspiracy, its parts bound together as links in a chain, is the process of procuring and distributing narcotics or an illegal foreign drug for sale in different parts of the globe. In such a case smugglers, middlemen and retailers are privies to a single conspiracy to smuggle and distribute narcotics. The smugglers knew that the middlemen must sell to retailers and the retailers knew that the middlemen must sell to retailers and the retailers knew that the middlemen must buy of importers of someone or another. Thus the conspirators at one end of the chain knew that the unlawful business would not and could not stop with their buyers and those at the other end knew that it had not begun with their settlers. The accused embarked upon a venture in all parts of which each was a participant and an abettor in the sense that, the success of the part with which he was immediately concerned, was dependent upon the success of the whole. It should also be considered as a spoke in the hub. There is a rim to bind all the spokes together in a single conspiracy. It is not material that a rim is found only when there is proof that each spoke was aware of one anothers existence but that all promoted in furtherance of some single illegal objective. The traditional concept of single agreement can also accommodate the situation where a well-defined group conspires to commit multiple crimes so long as all these crimes are the objects of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship, and the conspiracy continues to subsist though it was entered in the fist instance. Take for instance that three persons hatched a conspiracy in country A to kill D in country B with explosive substance. As far as conspiracy is concerned it is complete in country A. One of them pursuant thereto carried the explosive substance and hands it over to third one in the country B who implants at a place where D frequents and got exploded with remote control D may be killed or escape or may be diffused. The conspiracy continues till it is executed in country B or frustrated, therefore, it is a continuing act and all are liable for conspiracy in country B though first two are liable to murder with aid of Section 120 B and the last one is liable under Section 302 or 307 IPC, as the case may be. Conspiracy may be considered to be a march under a banner and a person may join or drop out in the march without the necessity of the change in the text on the banner. It the comity of International Law, in these days, committing offences on international scale is a common feature. The offence of conspiracy would be a useful weapon and there would exist no conflict in municipal laws and the doctrine of autrefois convict or acquit would extend to such offences. The comity of nations are duty-bound to apprehend the conspirators as soon as they set their feet on the countrys territorial limits and nip the offence in the bud25. A conspiracy thus, is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. So long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is complete as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing of the moment. It does not end with the making of the agreement. It will continue so long as there are two or more parties to it intending to carry into effect the design. Its continuance is a threat to the society against which it was aimed at and would be dealt with as soon as that jurisdiction can properly claim the power to so, The conspiracy designed or agreed abroad will have the same effect as in India, when part of the acts, pursuant to the agreement are agreed to be finalised or done, attempted or even frustrated and vice verse27. Thus we hold that sanction under section 188 is not a condition precedent to take cognizance of the office. If need be it could be obtained before trial begins. Conspiracy was initially hatched at Chandigarh and though itself is a completed offence, being continuing offence, even accepting appellants case that he was at Dubai and part of conspiracy and overt acts in furtherance thereof had taken place at Dubai and partly at Chandigarh and in consequence thereof other offences had ensued, since the offences have been committed during the continuing course of transaction culminating in cheating PNB at Chandigarh, the need to obtain sanction for various offences under proviso to Section 188 is obviated. Therefore, there is no need to obtain sanction from Central Government. The case may be different if the offences were committed outside India and are completed in themselves without conspiracy. Perhaps that question may be different for which we express no opinion on the facts of this case. The ratio in Fakhrulla Khan 1935 AIR(Mad) 326 : 68 MLJ 415 : 1935 MWN 325 ) has no application to the facts in this case. Therein the accused were charged for offences under Sections 420, 419, 467 and 468 and the offences were committed in native State, Mysore, As a result the courts in British India i.e. Madras province had no jurisdiction to try the offence without prior sanction Equally in Verghese case the offences charged under Section 409 IPC had also taken place outside British India Therefore, it was held that the sanction under Section 188 was necessary. The ratio in Kailash Sharma case is not good at law.