Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2016 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (2) TMI 1289 - HC - Indian LawsClubbing the two charge sheets - holding of one trial for both the charge sheets - conspiracy to obtain and operate a benami locker - HELD THAT:- The broad test for ascertaining whether offences charged form part of the same transaction is whether the other set of offences, even though distinct and separate, have been committed for facilitating the commission of the main offence. If the offences alleged involve similar system or persons and there is a hint of continuity of action, it is then part of the same transaction. If the substratum of the series of acts is common, then those acts do constitute same transaction. The allegation in the FIR No. RC/AC-1/2011/A0001 is that reliable information was received that B.L. Bajaj was acting as a middleman for obtaining bribe money from respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 for providing them undue favours through Mr.A.K. Srivastava, Chairman cum Managing Director, NALCO and then converting such bribe money into tangible form of gold for facilitating its delivery; for which bank account was opened with locker facilities by impersonating and using fake documents. The only purpose for impersonation and using of forged documents could be to provide a safe cover for A.K. Srivastava and Chandni Srivastava in accepting bribe money. Thus, the modus operandi appears to have been decided between four of the accused persons including the petitioner, rendering the two offences in two charge sheets being part of the same transaction. It matters not if respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 were not involved in opening of the bank locker by impersonation and using fake documents but one cannot lose sight of the fact that the account and the locker were opened for the purposes of depositing gold bars which were purchased out of the bribe money, allegedly given by the respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7. Thus even if the respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 have not played any active role in opening of the bank account and the locker, nonetheless the offence would form part of the same transaction for which four of the accused persons including the petitioner ought to be tried in one trial and not in two different trials - If two trials are held, it would only cause miscarriage of justice. Respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7, it is made clear, would not lose on any count as they would be tried with respect to the respective charges framed against them. Thus it would only be in consonance with the procedural propriety that the two charge sheets be tried together by amalgamating the same before the Special Judge. The Court below was not justified in holding that the offences delineated in charge sheet No. 4/2011 was not part of the same transaction and on which premise, the prayer of the petitioner for clubbing the two charge sheets and consolidating the same for the purposes of one trial was rejected - Petition allowed.
|