Thursday, 6 August 2020

Leading Supreme Court Judgment on basic concept of Same transaction under Criminal law

Whether a transaction can be regarded as the same would necessarily depend upon the particular facts of each case and it seems to us to be a difficult task to undertake a definition of that which the Legislature has deliberately left undefined. We have not come across a single decision of any Court which has embarked upon the difficult task of defining the expression. But it is generally thought that where there is proximity of time or place or unity of purpose and design or continuity of action in respect of a series of acts, it may be possible to infer that they form part of the same transaction. It is, however, not necessary that every one of these elements should co-exist for a transaction to be regarded as the same. But if several acts committed by a person show a unity of purpose or design that would be a strong circumstance to indicate that those acts form part of the same transaction. The connection between a series of acts seems to us to be an essential ingredient for those acts to constitute the same transaction and, therefore, the mere absence of the words "so connected together as to from" in clause (a), (c) and (d) of s. 239 would make little difference. Now, a transaction may consist of an isolated act or may consist of a series of acts.
The series of acts which constitute a transaction must of necessity be connected with one another and if some of them stands out independently, they would not form part of the same transaction but would constitute a different transaction or transactions. Therefore, even if the expression "same transaction" alone had been used in s. 235(1) it would have meant a transaction consisting either of a single act or of a series of connected acts. The expression "same transaction" occurring in cls. (a), (c) and (d) of s. 239 as well as that occurring in s. 235(1) ought to be given the same meaning according to the normal rule of construction of statutes.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1961

Decided On: 23.04.1963

State of Andhra Pradesh  Vs.  Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao and Ors.


Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
J.R. Mudholkar, K. Subba Rao and Raghubar Dayal, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0070/1963,AIR 1963 SC 1850

Read full Judgment here: Click here
Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment