Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 235(1) 8c 239(d)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 235(1) 8c 239(d)-Expression "same transaction"-Meaning-Whether or not different acts committed by one or more accused persons were com mitted in course of "same transaction"-Relevant factors for deter mination. The expression "same transaction" occurs in sections 235 (l) and 239 (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code but bas not been defined anywhere in the said Code. It has, however, been con sidered in a number of cases by the superior Courts in India and Pakistan as well as by the Privy Council. A study of the various cases on this question will show that the following factors are relevant in determining whether or not different acts committed by one or more accused persons were committed in the course of the "same transaction" the proximity of time, (ii) the proximity of place, (iii) whether or not they are related as cause and effect of each other, (iv) whether or not they are related to each other as principal and subsidiary acts, (v) the community of purpose, and (vi) the continuity of action. Yet it is not necessary that where factors mentioned at Nos. (i) to (iv) above are present, 'different acts committed by the accused must be said to have been committed during the course of the "same transaction": Proximity of time and place, etc. may be relevant factors but `community of purpose' and `unity of action' are the elements which are essential and absolutely necessary in order to link different acts so as to constitute one transaction. Even if the different acts are 'connected with each other as "Cause and Effect", it is not necessary that they should form parts of the `same transaction'. If, however, `community of purpose' is present in the shape of a conspiracy, plan, scheme or design, then the various offences committed in presence thereof shall be parts of the same transac tion even if they are widely separated in point of time or place of occurrence. Sarwar v. State 1968 P Cr. L J 1634 and Khan Muhammad v. Said P L D 1969 Lah. 537 not relevant. Emperor v. Datto Hanmant Shahapurkar I L R 30 Bom. 40; Babulal Chaukhani v.…