TMI Blog1994 (9) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substance of accusation against A. 1 to A. 5 is that A. 1 to A. 4, on 23-2-1993, at about 7.45 p.m. killed one Haji Mohammed Yakub, at Red Hilla, Hyderabad, a businessman and took away cash of ₹ 1,60,000/- from his possession. A-5, the petitioner-herein, harboured A. 1 to A. 4 in his house of Broadband, Hyderabad, and shared the booty along with A. 1 to A. 4. A. 1 to A. 4 are charged with offences of robbery and murder punishable under Sections 392 and 302, IPC and A. 5 is charged with the offence of harbouring the offenders and for dishonestly receiving the stolen property, punishable under Sections 212 IPC and 411, IPC. 3. The petitioner contends that in order to convict him for an offence under Section 212, IPC, first of all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, and not to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both ........ 6. A reading of this Section 212, IPC will disclose that 3 things have to be proved by the prosecution, viz., (i) there must be an offender, and (ii) the offender should have already committed an offence and (i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 212 . 10. In Chacko v. State (supra), trial of the case against the petitioner therein for an offence under Section 212, IPC was stayed until after the disposal of at least one of the cases against the concerned offenders on the ground that until the 'offender' has been convicted of the offence he is alleged to have committed, no prosecution can be launched under Section 212, Penal Code for harbouring him . 11. In both the above decisions, the accused were charged only with the offence u/s. 212, IPC and not with any other offences. 12. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner/A5 is charged with offence u/s. 212, IPC for harbouring A. 1 to A. 4, and also for an offence u/S. 411, IPC, for dishonestly receiving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of the same transaction, their joint trial can be ordered. The point of time in the proceedings at which it is to be determined whether the condition that the offences alleged had been committed in the course of the same transaction has been fulfilled or not is at the time when the accusation is made and not when the trial is concluded and the result known . 15. In State of Andh. Pra v. Ganeswara Rao, [1964] 3 SCR 297, the Supreme Court held : The object of enacting S. 239, is to avoid multiplicity of trials and the only limitation which could properly be placed on the trial of several persons for the same kind of or different offences would be that which considerations of justice and fairness would require . 16. The Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to the facts of the case as in those cases the accused therein were charged only with the offence u/S. 212, IPC. 18. Therefore, it follows, as laid down by the Supreme Court in K. Kunhahmmad v. The State of Madras (supra) and state of Andhra Pradesh v. Ganeswara Rao (supra), that to avoid multiplicity of trials and also as the offences alleged against all the accused including the petitioner herein (A5) are committed in the course of the same transaction, the charge for the offence u/S. 212, IPC against the petitioner must also be tried and decided in the same Sessions Case, without postponing the same for consideration by a separate case. By adopting this method, no prejudice is caused to petitioner. Further, if the petitioner/A5 i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
