How To Decide If Two Or More Acts Form "Same Transaction" For Joint Trial?

This Court, while expounding on Sections 177 and 220 CrPC, observed and laid down as under: -

“4.......Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on which Mr Mishra relies, uses the expression “ordinarily”. The use of the word “ordinarily” indicates that the provision is a general one and must be read subject to the special provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code. That apart, this Court has taken the view that the exceptions implied by the word “ordinarily” need not be limited to those specially provided for by the law and exceptions may be provided by law on considerations of convenience or may be implied from other provisions of law permitting joint trial of offences by the same court....... It may be noticed that under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences more than one committed by the same persons could be tried at one trial, if they can be held to be in one series of acts, so as to form the same transaction. The expression “same transaction” from its very nature is incapable of an exact definition. It is not intended to be interpreted in any artificial or technical sense. Common sense and the ordinary use of language must decide whether on the facts of a particular case, it can be held to be in one transaction. It is not possible to enunciate any comprehensive formula of universal application for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction. But the circumstances of a given case indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose or design are the factors for deciding whether certain acts form parts of the same transaction or not. Therefore a series of acts whether are so connected together as to form the same transaction is purely a question of fact to be decided on the aforesaid criteria.”

(emphasis supplied)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 903 OF 2022 

 MS. P1 xxx Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

Coram: DINESH MAHESHWARI; VIKRAM NATH, JJ.

Author: Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Dated: JUNE 16, 2022

Print Page

Under which circumstances court can permit the consolidation of criminal cases?

  Perusal of the above table reveals that the respondent has

preferred these complaints on the very same material, evidence and documents and allegations in all the three complaints are to a large extent quite same. The petitioner is, thus, facing three separate trials in all the three complaints before the same Magistrate for not declaring the fact of having a foreign account to the Income Tax Authorities. {Para 15} 

16. The ingredients of Section 220 of Cr.P.C. have been defined in

Chandni Srivastava Vs. CBI & Ors. decided on 9th Feb., 2016 in

W.P.(CRL) 3486/2018 & Crl.M.A. 47373/2018 Page no.15 of 17

WP(Crl.) 743/2013 in which it was held that Sec. 220 of the Cr.P.C. permits of one trial even if many offences are committed, if such offences form part of the same transaction, the rationale for such an exception being that in such circumstances, separate trials may lead to conflicting judgments.

17. In ‘Mohan Baitha vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 1490’, the

Supreme Court interpreted Section 220 of the Code and observed as

under:-

"It may be noticed that under Section 220 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, offences more than

one committed by the same persons could be tried

at one trial, if they can be held to be in one series

of acts, so as to form the same transaction. The

expression "same transaction" from its very nature

is incapable of an exact definition. It is not

intended to be interpreted in any artificial or

technical sense. Common sense and the ordinary

use of language must decide whether on the facts

of a particular case, it can be held to be in one

transaction. It is not possible to enunciate any

comprehensive formula of universal application

for the purpose of determining whether two or

more acts constitute the same transaction. But the

circumstances of a given case indicating proximity

of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of

action and community of purpose or design are the

factors for deciding whether certain acts form parts

of the same transaction or not. Therefore, a series

of acts whether are so connected together as to

form the same transaction is purely a question of

fact to be decided on the aforesaid criteria".

18. The broad test, therefore, 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 persons and there is a hint of continuity of action, it is then part of the same transaction. Thus, if the substratum of the series of acts is common, then those acts do constitute same transaction.

19. As discussed above, the three complaints in fact are a part of the same transaction. The first complaint has been filed on the assumption that petitioner is holding an undisclosed foreign account and two subsequent complaints are nothing but to arrive at a figure to meet the ingredients of the first offence. The chart given above reveals that the allegations, documents and nature of evidence are same in all the three complaints. In these circumstances, it will be in the interest of justice to have a common trial for all the three complaints.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Pronounced on: November 24th, 2020

 W.P.(CRL) 3486/2018 & Crl.M.A. 47373/2018

PARAMINDER SINGH KALRA  Vs THE COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX 

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI

Print Page

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.

Print Page

Whether offence committed at two different places may form part of same criminal conspiracy?

Section 223(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 clearly provides that persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction can be charged and tried together. On the other hand, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my considered view, has no application in the peculiar facts of the present case, because therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an issue that goods in the possession of a person who is not lawfully in possession of them, cannot be seized except under authority of law. In the present case, the facts are that a person was held by the police of Police Post Manikaran from whose possession, heroin was recovered and in the course of investigation, he disclosed that he had purchased the same from the present petitioner and further, in the course of investigation, 1 Kgs. and 500 of heroin was recovered from the residence of the petitioner at New Delhi. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no assistance.

In the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla

(Before Ajay Mohan Goel, J.)

Okechuku Mathew .v. State of Himachal Pradesh 

Cr. MP(M) No. 1530 of 2017

Decided on December 29, 2017

Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine HP 1809

Print Page

Whether court can pass concurrent sentences if separate prosecutions are instituted relating same transaction?

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations for misappropriation were for one transaction, in a 3 block period, for a quantified sum. The appellant will have to undergo the sentences consecutively for each conviction, after the earlier sentence in a case exhausted itself. The appellant is 68 years old. Reference was made to Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. and Shyam Pal (supra) to contend that the sentences awarded individually ought to be directed to run concurrently.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, referring to Section 31 Cr.P.C. submits that each case was a separate prosecution, relating to a different time period, and for a different sum. It is only in a case where a person is tried in respect of two or more offences in a single transaction, that the sentence can be directed to run concurrently.

8. We have considered the respective submissions, and are of the opinion, that essentially the allegations constituted a single transaction, between the same parties for a block period, split up by the prosecution, presumably for its convenience, into three different cases. The evidence also was 4 common, and so is the conviction. Section 427(1), Cr.P.C. stipulates that where a person undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment, it shall commence at the expiration of the imprisonment previously sentenced, unless the court directs that the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence. The jurisdiction being discretionary must be exercised on fair and just principles in the facts of a case.

9. We do not consider it necessary to further elucidate or enter into an exposition of the law, in view of the precedents noticed above. Suffice it to observe that in the facts of the case, the exercise of discretion under Section 427(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, mandates that the substantive sentences imposed upon the appellant in the three separate prosecutions, are directed to run concurrently, except the default sentence, if the fine by way of compensation as imposed has not been paid by him.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

P.N. Mohanan Nair Vs. State of Kerala

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1102-1104 of 2017

O R D E R

NAVIN SINHA, J.

Ranjan Gogoi) J

Dated: 11July2017

Print Page

Whether registration of multiple FIRs is permissible in respect of offences committed in same transaction?

 In MANU/SC/0329/2013 : (2013) 6 SCC 348 in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI 8b others, in head note F', the Apex Court held as under:--

"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss.154 to 162, 173(8), 173(2), 169, 170 and 482 - FIR, initial investigation, further investigation, first charge-sheet, subsequent/supplementary charge-sheet(s) and second FIR - Scheme of Cr.P.C., explained -Duty of IO to investigate connected offences committed in course of same transaction - Held, there can be no second FIR and, consequently, there can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences - Rather, investigating agency may investigate further upon receipt of subsequent information, normally with the leave of Magistrate/court and where during further investigation, investigating agency collects further evidence, oral or documentary, it is obliged to forward the same with one or more supplementary reports/charge-sheets to court."

24. From the ratio laid down in the above decisions of the Apex Court, it is manifest that the registration of second FIR or multiple FIRs in respect of offences committed in the same transactions is impermissible. Considering the scheme of Cr.P.C., fundamental rights of the accused guaranteed under Article 20, 21 and 14 of the Constitution of India and the stand of Lokayukta, FIR in Cr. No. 57/2010 is held to be invalid. Subjecting citizens to fresh investigation on the basis of subsequent FIR or second FIR is abuse of power. It is a fit case to exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the second FIR. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

Criminal Petition No. 5102 of 2015

Decided On: 10.03.2016

 S.V. Srinivas 
Vs.
 State of Karnataka

Coram:P.D. Waingankar, J.

Citation: 2016 CRLJ(NOC)321 KAR

Print Page

Procedure to be followed by complainant in case of dishonour of multiple cheques relatable to same transaction

We are also in agreement with the Learned Attorney General's suggestions for controlling the filing of multiple complaints that are relatable to the same transaction. It was submitted that complaints are being increasingly filed in multiple jurisdictions in a vexatious manner which causes tremendous harassment and prejudice to the drawers of the  cheque. For instance, in the same transaction pertaining to a loan taken on an installment basis to be repaid in equated monthly installments, several cheques are taken which are dated for each monthly installment and upon the dishonor of each of such cheques, different complaints are being filed in different courts which may also have jurisdiction in relation to the complaint. In light of this submission, we direct that it should be mandatory for the complainant to disclose that no other complaint has been filed in any other court in respect of the same transaction. Such a disclosure should be made on a sworn affidavit which should accompany the complaint filed under Section 200 of the CrPC. If it is found that such multiple complaints have been filed, orders for transfer of the complaint to the first court should be given, generally speaking, by the High Court after imposing heavy costs on the complainant for resorting to such a practice. These directions should be given effect prospectively.

Supreme Court of India

Damodar S.Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H on 3 May, 2010

Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam, J.M. Panchal

REPORTABLE

Citation;AIR 2010 SC1907

Print Page

When joint trial of persons accused of different offence committed in the course of same transaction is permisible?

 Examining the correctness of the conclusion recorded by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, this Court held:-

".....The question is whether for the purposes of s. 239(d) it is necessary to ascertain any thing more than this that the different offences were committed in the course of the same transaction or whether it must further be ascertained whether the acts are intrinsically connected with one another. Under s. 235(1) what has to be ascertained is whether the offences arise out of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, but the words "so connected together as to form" are not repeated after the words "same transaction" in s. 239. What has to be ascertained then is whether these words are also to be read in all the clauses of s. 239 which refer to the same transaction. Section 235(1), while providing for the joint trial for more than one offences, indicates that there must be connection between the acts and the transaction. According to this provision there must thus be a connection between a series of acts before, they could be regarded as forming the same transaction. What is meant by "same transaction" is not defined anywhere in the Code. Indeed, it would always be difficult to define precisely what the expression means. 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 form" in cl. (a), (c) and (d) of s. 239 would make little difference.

(iii) This Court after taking note of the fact that the clause "same transaction" is not defined under the Cr.P.C. opined that the meaning of the clause should depend upon the facts of each case. However, this Court indicated that where there is a proximity of time or place or unity of purpose and design or continuity of action in respect of a series of acts, it is possible to infer that they form part of the same transaction. This Court also cautioned that every one of the above-mentioned elements need not co-exist for a transaction to be regarded as the "same transaction".

Supreme Court of India

R.Dineshkumar@Deena vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police ... on 16 March, 2015

Bench: J. Chelameswar, C. Nagappan

Citation;(2015) 7 SCC 497

Print Page