Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Ss. 218–223 – Consolidation/Clubbing of FIRs – Cheating of 1,852 investors pursuant to alleged conspiracy – Whether each deposit is separate transaction – Premature reference by Sessions Court – Consolidation permissible subject to “same transaction” test – High Court’s answers set aside.
A. Reference under S.395(2) CrPC – Prematurity
Para 21
Held:
-
Reference by Additional Sessions Judge was premature.
-
Investigation was ongoing; it was not yet ascertainable whether offences formed part of same transaction.
-
Questions regarding consolidation arise only after investigation culminates and Magistrate applies mind at stage of charge.
B. Consolidation of FIRs – Legal Position
Paras 19–22
-
S.218(1) CrPC mandates separate charge and separate trial for distinct offences.
-
Ss.219–223 CrPC are exceptions.
-
Under S.220(1) and S.223(a) & (d), offences forming part of same transaction may be charged and tried together.
-
Consolidation of FIRs is permissible in law, depending upon facts and nature of transaction.
C. “Same Transaction” – Tests
Paras 11, 20
Triple tests (not cumulative):
-
Unity of purpose and design
-
Proximity of time and place
-
Continuity of action
If acts exhibit unity of design (e.g., conspiracy), they may constitute same transaction.
Relied on:
-
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao
-
S. Swamirathnam v. State of Madras
-
Banwarilal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India
Distinguished:
-
State of Jharkhand v. Lalu Prasad Yadav
-
Narinderjit Singh Sahni v. Union of India
D. Single FIR in Conspiracy Cases
Paras 21–22
Facts:
-
FIR No. 89 of 2009 under Ss.420 & 120B IPC.
-
1,852 victims cheated of ₹46.40 crores.
-
Other 1851 complaints treated as statements under S.161 CrPC.
-
Six supplementary charge sheets filed.
-
Offence of criminal conspiracy (S.120B IPC) alleged.
Held:
Where conspiracy alleged leading to multiple acts of cheating, registering one FIR and treating other complaints as statements under S.161 CrPC was correct course at investigation stage.
Reliance placed on:
-
T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala
-
Amish Devgan v. Union of India
E. Role of Magistrate at Stage of Charge
Magistrate to determine:
-
Whether acts constitute same transaction (S.220(1), S.223(a)&(d)).
-
If yes → one consolidated trial permissible.
-
If no → separate trials, subject to S.219 CrPC (now S.242 BNSS – five offences of same kind within one year).
Complainants treated as witnesses may file protest petitions if closure report filed or discharge contemplated.
F. Sentencing
If consolidated trial:
-
S.71 IPC
-
S.31 & S.325 CrPC to govern sentencing.
If multiple trials → separate convictions possible; proportionality to be maintained.
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
Consolidation of FIRs is legally permissible where alleged offences form part of the same transaction, particularly in cases involving criminal conspiracy.
-
Whether multiple acts constitute the same transaction depends on factual assessment applying tests of unity of purpose, proximity, and continuity.
-
Registration of a single FIR and treating subsequent complaints as statements under S.161 CrPC is permissible where conspiracy and connected acts are alleged.
-
Determination of consolidation is primarily for the Magistrate at the stage of framing of charge, not at preliminary reference stage.
RESULT
High Court’s answers to Questions (a) and (b) set aside.
Appeal allowed.
Court recorded appreciation for assistance of learned Amicus Curiae.
No comments:
Post a Comment