Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal conspiracy to issue import licences for motor vehicle parts to fictitious firms and thereby obtain pecuniary advantage. The appellant, Srichand K. Khetwani, was one of four accused persons tried before the trial court; the other accused were A.G. Nelson, Assistant Controller of Imports, P.H. Shingrani, Upper Division Clerk, and Ramshankar Ramayan Bhargava. The prosecution alleged that in pursuance of a conspiracy, licences were prepared in the names of companies having no existence, and two licences in the name of M.L. Trading Co., Bombay, were delivered by post to the appellant on May 15, 1959, by Prabhakar Karmik, PW20, a postman. The appellant denied receiving such licences and denied conspiring with Nelson and Shingrani. The trial court convicted all four accused under Section 120B read with Section 409 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Bhargava and dismissed the appeals of the other three. The appellant obtained special leave from the Supreme Court, while the other two convicted persons did not appeal. The appellant raised four main contentions: first, that the charge described a single conspiracy whereas the facts established eight separate conspiracies, each relating to a different fictitious firm; second, that the postman Karmik was an accomplice and the High Court misread the evidence by finding an intimate relationship; third, that the handwriting expert should have been examined because the investigating officer had obtained specimen writings, and the High Court improperly considered reasons other than the officer's explanation; and fourth, that the High Court sought corroboration from a circumstance not supported by evidence and not put to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court rejected the first contention, holding that the charge was of a general conspiracy to issue licences in the names of fictitious firms and to share the benefits arising from those licences, not separate conspiracies with each firm. The members of the conspiracy other than the two public servants must have joined with full knowledge of the modus operandi and intention to share profits. The mere fact that licences were issued in eight different names did not make eight separate conspiracies. R. v. Griffiths was distinguished because in that case the farmers were genuine and separate, whereas in the present case no real independent companies existed. On the accomplice issue, the Court held that Karmik was a public servant who simply delivered the registered envelope in the discharge of duty and had previous acquaintance with the appellant; he was not an accomplice. The High Court did not misread the evidence. Regarding the handwriting expert, the Court held that it is not necessary to examine an expert in every case; further, an adverse inference under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can be drawn only if the prosecution withholds evidence, not merely because it fails to obtain certain evidence. The Court found no error in the High Court considering reasons beyond the investigating officer's explanation. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy - Single Conspiracy for Multiple Acts - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120B - The charge alleged one general conspiracy to issue import licences to fictitious firms and share pecuniary benefits; despite eight licences in different names, all accused shared common object and modus operandi, so one conspiracy existed; R. v. Griffiths distinguished because farmers were genuine and separate. Held that the charge as framed was not defective (Paras 598-599). B) Criminal Law - Accomplice Evidence - Postman Not Accomplice - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The postman who delivered the registered cover was a public servant performing official duty and had prior acquaintance with appellant; he was not an accomplice because he did not participate in conspiracy; High Court correctly accepted his testimony. Held that no misreading of evidence occurred (Paras 599-600). C) Evidence - Expert Opinion and Adverse Inference - Failure to Examine Handwriting Expert - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 45 and 114 - Adverse inference under Illustration (g) of Section 114 cannot be drawn from mere failure to obtain expert opinion; only when prosecution withholds available evidence can inference arise; High Court could consider reasons besides investigating officer's explanation. Held that no adverse inference could be drawn (Paras 600).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the charge of a single conspiracy was defective when licences were issued to eight fictitious firms; whether the High Court erred in not treating the postman as an accomplice; whether failure to obtain handwriting expert opinion warranted an adverse inference against the prosecution; whether the High Court relied upon a circumstance not proved and not put to the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 120B read with Section 409 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Criminal conspiracy
- single general conspiracy
- bogus firms
- import licences
- pecuniary advantage
- adverse inference
- handwriting expert
- accomplice evidence
- Section 120B IPC
- Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1947
