Supreme Court of India
CHAMAN LAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 431
- Decided
- 31 March 2009
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The High Court was correct in finding sufficient grounds to presume that the complainant's unrebutted evidence constituted triable offences under Sections 409 r/w 120B and 420 r/w 120B IPC, and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appellants purchased a plot of land through a General Power of Attorney (GPA) that was later cancelled, but the GPA holder concealed this and executed sale deeds in their favour. The complainant filed a suit and later a criminal complaint alleging conspiracy, cheating and criminal breach of trust, leading to charges under Sections 409 r/w 120B and 420 r/w 120B of the IPC. The appellants challenged the maintainability of these charges in a revision petition, arguing lack of bonafide intent and absence of overt acts. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that the unrebutted evidence of the complainant was sufficient to presume triable offences. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, reiterating the elements of criminal conspiracy under Sections 120A and 120B IPC and concluding that the High Court’s order was correct, thereby dismissing the appeal.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of the complainant's unrebutted evidence to sustain charges under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 120B IPC.
- Whether an overt act is required to establish a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.
- The legal effect of a cancelled General Power of Attorney on the validity of subsequent sale deeds.
- The maintainability of charges framed against the appellants in the revision proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 205
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 1208, s. 120A, s. 120B, s. 409, s. 420
Subjects
criminal conspiracySection 120B IPCSection 409 IPCSection 420 IPCpower of attorneyproperty fraudcharges framedmaintainabilityunrebutted evidence
Judgment
.. , (2009) 5 S.C.R. 351
CHAMAN LAL & ORS. A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1174 of 2003)
~
MARCH 31, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860- s.409rlw1208 and s.420 rlw s.1208
c
- Charges under, framed by trial court- Revision petition filed
by accused challenging maintainability of the charges framed
- Dismissal of, by High Court - Justification of - Held:
Justified - There were sufficient grounds to presume that un-
¥ rebutted evidences of the complainant constituted triable
offences under s.409 rlw s.120-8 /PC and s.420 rlw s.120-8. D
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 120A and 1208 - Criminal
conspiracy - Elements and essence of - Discussed.
The owner of the property in question executed a
General Power of Attorney (GPA) in respect of the same E
in favour of 'M'. The said document was however
subsequently cancelled by the owner. 'M' purportedly
concealed that fact and sold the property to the
-I appellants by executing SPAs in their favour. Pursuant
to a complaint by the owner, the trial court framed F
charges against the appellants under s.409 rlw s.120-B
IPC and s.420 rlw s.120-B IPC. Appellants filed revision
petition challenging maintainability of the charges framed.
High Court dismissed the revision petition holding that
there was sufficient ground to presume that the G
-+ unrebutted evidence of the complainant constituted .
triable offences under s.409 rlw s.120-B IPC and s.420 rl
w s.120-B IPC. Hence the present appeal.
351 H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
...
A Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is
the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is
complete when the combination is framed. From this, it
necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires, no
B
overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy,
and that the object of the combination need not be
accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable
offence. Law making conspiracy a crime, is designed to
curb immoderate power to do mischief which is gained
c by a combination of the means. The encouragement and
support which co-conspirators give to one another
rendering enterprises possible which, if left to individual
effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground
for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign '1
D punishment. The conspiracy is held to be continued and
renewed as to all its members wherever and whenever
any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the
common design. [Para 7] [359-C-G]
E 1.2. For an offence punishable under Section 120-B,
IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the
perpetrators expressly agreed to do or caused to be done
an illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary
implication. The offence of criminal conspiracy has its
.....
F foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. A
conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or
more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an
unlawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a
design rests in intention only, it is not indictable. When
two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in
G
itself, and an act of each of the parties, promise against
promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced,
if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for use of
criminal means. [Para 7] [359-H; 360-A-C]
H
CHAMAN LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 353
... 1.3. No doubt in the case of conspiracy there cannot A
be any direct evidence. The ingredients of the offence are
that there should be an agreement between persons who
are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should
be for doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means
an act which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the B
essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an
illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either
by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by
both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct
evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. c
Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and
after the occurrence have to be considered to decide
about the complicity of the accused. [Paras 8] [360-D-E]
1.4. The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the
fact of combination by agreement. The agreement may be D
express or implied, or in part express and in part implied.
The conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as
soon as the agreement is made; and the offence
continues to be committed so long as the combination
persists, that is until the conspiratorial agreement is E
terminated by completion of its performance or by
abandonment or frustration or however it may be. The
actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to execute
the illegal conduct, not the execution of il It is not enough
that two or more persons pu;sued the same unlawful F
object at the same time or in the same place; it is
necessary to show a meeting of minds, a consensus to
effect an unlawful purpose. It is not, however, necessary
that each conspirator should have been in
communication with every other. [Para 10] [360-H; 361- G
A-C]
American Jurisprudence, Vol. II, Sec. 23, p. 559 and
Halsbury's Laws of England vide 4th Edn., Vol. 11, p. 44,
para 58, referred to.
H
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
A 2. In the present case, the High Court rightly
observed that the charges have to be established beyond
reasonable doubt before the prosecution can succeed,
-
but at that stage the challenge can be made. There was
no scope for intereference . [Para 11) [361-D] ,.
B ~
CRIMINAL APPELLATE ,JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1174 of 2003.
From the Judgment & Order dated 18.10.2001 of the High
Court of Punjab and Harayna at Chandigarh in Criminal
c Revision No. 512 of 2000.
U.U. Lalit, Aloke K. Sengupta, Mrinal K. Mandal, S.
Mukherjee, D. Samanta and Anupam Lal Das for the Appellant. I
•
'
Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey and Sanjay Katyal for the 'f
D Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is
E to the judgment of a learned Single judge of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision i.e.
Criminal Revision No.512 of2000 filed by nine petitioners, who
are the appellants in this Appeal. Before the High Court the
challenge was to the order passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana framing charges for alleged ........
F
commission of offences punishable under Section 409 read
with Section 120B and Section 420 read with Section 120 8
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The High
Court dismissed the revision petition on the ground that there
are sufficient grounds to presume that the unrebutted evidences
G of the complainant constitute triable offences.
~
2. Background facts as projected by appellants in a
nutshell are as follows:
H
CHAMAN LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 355
.... [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
In February, 1987 the complainant and his five family A
-
' members executed General Power of Attorney (in short the
'GPA') at Canada in favour of Manvinder Singh and
subsequently the said GPA was registered with the
Commissioner of Ferozepur, Punjab. The GPA stated that the
GPA holder can do anything on behalf of the complainant which 8
i
he can lawfully do. The GPA does not contain any condition or
restriction.
In August, 1989 the GPA holder met the appellants with a
proposal to sell a plot of land of the complainant admeasuring
4840 square yards comprised in Khasra No. 1085 situated at c
Village Barewal Awana, Ludhiana. The GPA holder demanded
a price of Rs.5 lakhs for the said property.
On 4.10.1989 the appellants by an oral agreement-agreed
..., to purchase the said property and paid Rs.1 lakh by way of four D
demand drafts to the GPA holder.
~)--- On 7.11.1989 the aforesaid oral agreement was reduced
into writing and the balance sum of Rs.4 lakh was also paid
(Rs.1 lakh in cash and Rs.3 lakhs by bank drafts). Upon receipt
E
of entire consideration, the GPA holder executed four SPAs in
favour of appellant Nos.1 (Chaman Lal) 2 (Daljander Kaur) 3
(Narinder Kaur) and 7 (Balwant Singh).
On 5.12.1989 by virtue of the aforesaid 5 SPAs dated
.,. -{ 7.11.1989 appellant Nos.1, 2, 3 & 7 executed and registered F
5 sale deeds in favour of appellant Nos.2 to 6.
In the middle of December, 1989 the appellants suddenly
~ came to know that the complainant had filed a suit No.120/89
dated 28.11.1989 against Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 for G
declaration that the said GPA holder (Manvinder Singh) had no
authority to sell the said property and/or to per!11anently alienate
and dispose of the said property.
The appellants also came to know that in the said suit for
H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
....
A ·declaration, an ex-parte injunction order/status quo was granted
on 02.12.1989, though the appellants in the absence of
knowledge- of such ex-parte injunction order had already
executed the sale-deeds and got them registered on
05.12.1989.
....
8
On 14.06.1990 the learned Senior Subordinate Judge
r
passed an order in the aforesaid suit, restraining the appellants
from dispossessing the complainant from the said property and
to maintain status quo with regard to ownership of the said
property pending disposal of the suit, whereas in fact the
c appellants were already in possession of the said property
since 07.11.1989.
On 20.8.1990 and 21.11.1990 the appellants preferred an
Appeal No. 274/67 in the Court of the learned Additional
D District Judge, Ludhiana praying, inter alia, to maintain the y
status quo with regard to the ownership and possession of the
said property and vide order dated 21.11.1990, the parties
were ordered, during pendency of the main suit, to maintain
status quo with regard to ownership and possession of the
E property.
On 30.6.1995 the complainant lodged a complaint with the
Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana - Shri S.S. Channi, I.AS., who
summoned the appellants at his residence and asked them to
cancel the sale-deeds and concede to the claim of the
F complainant in the civil suit. The Commissioner also threatened )" .._
the appellants with dire consequences by implicating them in
false criminal cases. The said officer is related to the
complainant.
G On 31.08.1995 after a period of about 6 years, on a
complaint lodged by the complainant, an FIR No. 183, Police
Station Division No.5 District Ludhiana was registered only
against Shri Sadhu Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Ludhiana and Shri
.. '
Banta Singh, Patwari of Village Barewal Awana under Sections
H 420, 468., 471, 120 B IPC.
-{
CHAMAN LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 357
" ' [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
I
~ On 13.3.1996 on application of the complainant, an inquiry A
was initiated and marked to the SP City, Ludhiana.
On 29.5.1996 the SP City, Ludhiana submitted his Report
to the SSP, Ludhiana stating therein that the FIR was the
handiwork to pressurize the appellants and further that no such
1 8
offence had been committed by the appellants.
On 14.10.1996 despite the aforesaid report of the SP City,
Ludhiana and in spite of the note of the AD.A. (Legal) that no
criminal case was made out against the appellants, a charge
sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the c
appellants for commission of alleged offences under Sections
420, 468, 467, 471,1208 IPC.
On 11.12.1999 the Ld. ACJM, Ludhiana framed charges
--y: under Sections 1208 read with Section 409 IPC and under D
Sections 1208/420 IPC against the appellants.
The appellants preferred a Criminal Revision No. 512 of
2000 in the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the
maintainability of the charges framed against them and the
learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the prayer E
of the appellants by the impugned order holding that there was
sufficient ground .to presume that the unrebutted evidence of the
complainant constitute triable offences.
,, "¥ 3. According to learned counsel for the appellant a sum of F
Rs.1,00,000/- was paid as earnest money. The power of
attorney was drawn up at Canada and was registered on
19.3.1987 by accused No.1 at Firozepur, Punjab. The factual
.·,
scenario described above goes to show that the complaint was
nothing but the abuse of the process of court. The ingredients G
necessary for constituting offences punishable under Sections
409, 420 and 1208 IPC are not made out. In any event the
complaint was lodged after about six years and this itself is
sufficient to show lack of bonafides.
H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
...
A 4. Manvinder Singh at the relevant point of time had the
authority to enter into the transaction.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
supported the judgments of the courts below.
8 6. The High Court has found that the acts are not in r
dispute, the power of attorney is the central document in the
case. The High Court noted that significantly, too many details
of the property in respect of which it was executed were missing.
The High Court observed that the power of attorney was
c embossed with the stamp of Commissioner, Firozepur on 19th
March, 1987 prima facie on making it a valid document. But
nevertheless a plain reading of the power of attorney leaves one
with the uncertain feeling as regards its true import. The High
Court observed that it is possible that the appellants were duped
D by the attorney who had known that his power has been revoked 'I'
but concealed the fact. Thereafter having coming to this
E
conclusion the High Court noted as follows:
"Such an argument could have been validly advanced
by the petitioners to establish their bonafides if the power
-
of attorney itself had mentioned the details of the property
in dispute and had also mentioned specifically that the
attorney had the power to a\ienate the property through
sale, mortgage and lease etc. The petitioners must have
examined the document because it was from the document
F that the power to enter into the agreement to sell had come ') "
to vest in Manvinder Singh. If even after examining the
G
document the petitioners went ahead with the transaction
they did so at their own peril. They lacked bonafides and
were out to deprive the owner of his property by a series
of transactions."
,-
7. It would be appropriate to deal with the question of
conspiracy. Section 120-8 IPC is the provision which provides
for punishment for criminal conspiracy. Definition of "criminal
H conspiracy" given in Section 120-A reads as follows:
-f CHAMAN LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 359
~~ [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
"f
"120-A. When two or more persons agree to do, or A
cause to be done,-
( 1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
~~ agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: B
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to
commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy
unless some act besides the agreement is done by one
or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof." c
The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be:
(a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme
embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement
or understanding between two or more of the accused persons
D
• whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate for the
accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the
_, agreement, or by any effectual means, and (d) in the jurisdiction
where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a
criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily
the offence is complete when the combination is framed. From E
this, it necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires,
no overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and
that the object of the combination need not be accomplished,
in order to constitute an indictable offence. Law making
',. _j conspiracy a crime, is designed to curb immoderate power to F
do mischief which is gained by a combination of the means.
The encouragement and support which co-conspirators give to
one another rendering enterprises possible which, if left to
individual effort, wou!d have been impossible, furnish the ground
for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment. G
The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to all
~
'
its members wherever and whenever any member of the
- • conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design. (See
American Jurisprudence, Vol. II, Sec. 23, p. 559.) For an
offence punishable under Section 120-B, the prosecution need H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 5 S.C.R.
l ~ '
A not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to
do or caused to be done an illegal act; the agreement may be
proved by necessary implication. The offence of criminal
conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an
offence. A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two
B or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful
act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in
intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into
effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and an act of each of the
parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable
C of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object
or for use of criminal means.
8. No doubt in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any
direct evidence. The ingredients of the offence are that there
should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to
D conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal
act or for doing by illegal means an act which itself may not be
illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an
agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be
proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence
E or by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct
evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Thewfore, the
circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence
have to be. considered to decide about the complicity of the
accused.
F
9. In Ha/sbury's Laws of England (vide 4th Edn., Vol. 11,
p. 44, para 58), the English law as to conspiracy has been
stated thus:
"58. Conspiracy consists in the agreement of two or more
G persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by
unlawful means. It is an indictable offence at common law,
I
the punishment for which is imprisonment or fine or both
in the discretion of the court.
H 10. The essence of the offence of conspiracy is the fact
CHAMAN LAL & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 361
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
--<
.j
of combination by agreement. The agreement may be express A
or implied, or in part express and in part implied. The
. conspiracy arises and the offence is committed as soon as the
agreement is made; and the offence continues to be committed
so long as the combination persists, that is until the
conspiratorial agreement is terminated by completion of its B
performance or by abandonment or frustration or however it
may be. The actus reus in a conspiracy is the agreement to
execute the illegal conduct, not the execution of it. If is not
enough that two or more persons pursued the same unlawful
object at the same time or in the same place; it is necessary c
to show a meeting of minds, a consensus to effect an unlawful
purpose. It is not, however, necessary that each conspirator
should have been in communication with every other."
.... 11. The High Court has rightly observed that the charges
have to be established beyond reasonable doubt before the D
prosecution can succeed, but at that stage the challenge can
be made. There was no scope for intereference. We are in
agreement with the view expressed by the High Court. However,
we make it clear that the observations made by the High Court
while dismissing the petition before it shall not be considered E
' to be conclusive and determined. It has been rightly noted that
Manvinder accepted the factum of cancellation but thereafter
executed the special power of attorney. Therefore, we find no
infirmity in the order of the High Court to warrant interference.
However, we request the trial court to explore the possibility of F
early disposal of the case. If any petition for exemption is filed,
needless to say the same shall be considered keeping in view
sub section 2 of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (in short the 'Cr.PC.').
G
12. The appeal is dismissed.
-'<,
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "criminal conspiracy"Sign in to search