Published on: 14 July 2023 at 01:25 IST
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: Anju Chaudhary V. State of U.P. (2013)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the law recognises common trial or a common FIR being registered for one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction as contemplated under Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is held that “Same Transaction Test” must be applied to ascertain whether the actions are so related to one another in point of purpose or of cause and effect, or as principal and subsidiary, so as to result in one continuous action.
44. It is not possible to enunciate any formula of universal application for the purpose of determining whether two or more acts constitute the same transaction. Such things are to be gathered from the circumstances of a given case indicating proximity of time, unity or proximity of place, continuity of action, commonality of purpose or design. Where two incidents are of different times with involvement of different persons, there is no commonality and the purpose thereof different and they emerge from different circumstances, it will not be possible for the court to take a view that they form part of the same transaction and therefore, there could be a common FIR or subsequent FIR could not be permitted to be registered or there could be common trial.
45. Similarly, for several offences to be part of the same transaction, the test which has to be applied is whether they are so related to one another in point of purpose or of cause and effect, or as principal and subsidiary, so as to result in one continuous action. Thus, where there is a commonality of purpose or design, where there is a continuity of action, then all those persons involved can be accused of the same or different offences “committed in the course of the same transaction”.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
