Judgement

BHAGWATI, J.: The accused No.1, the Appellant before us, and accused Nos. 2,3 and 4 were charged that they, at Bombay, between about June 1950 and November 1950, were parties to a criminal conspiracy by agreeing to do certain illegal act, to wit: Firstly, that they used as genuine forged bills of entry which included bills of entry Exhibit Z;

Secondly, that they cheated the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing him to deliver to the firm of J. Sobhraj and Co., an import licence bearing No. 248189/48 to import cycles from United Kingdom of the value of Rs. 1,98,960; Thirdly, that they cheated the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, by falsely and dishonestly inducing him to deliver to the firm of J. Sobhraj and Co., an import licence bearing No. 203056/48 to import watches for Switzerland of the value of Rs. 3,45,325; and Fourthly, that they cheated the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing him to deliver to the firm of J. Sobhraj and Co., an import licence bearing No. 250288/48 to import artificial silk piece goods from Switzerland of the value of Rs. 12,11.829; and the above said illegal acts were done in pursuance of the said - agreement and that they thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 120-B Penal Code. There were also charges against all the accused under S. 471, read with S. 465 and S. 34 and also under S. 420 read with S. 34, Penal Code, in respect of each of the three illegal acts aforesaid.

2. The learned Presidency Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanades, Bombay, tried all accused for the said offences and acquitted all of them. The State of Bombay thereupon took an appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, & the High Court reversed the acquittal of accused No.1 and held him guilty of all the offences with which he had been charged including the offences with which he had been charged including the offence under S. 120-B Penal Code. The acquittal of accused 2,3, and 4 was confirmed.

3. The High Court, even though it acquitted accused 2,3, and 4 of the charge under S. 120-B, Penal Code, was of the opinion that that deed of assignment put forward by the accused No.1 in his defence was false and fabricated document and the said document along with its accompaniments was forged or was got forged by or with the knowledge or connivance of the accused No.1 and his coconspirator and it was impossible to believe that this conspiracy carried out with such meticulous care could be the work of only accused No.1.

There was no evidence on the record to warrant no evidence on the record to warrant any inference that the accused No.1 was acting in the matter in collaboration with any other co-conspirators and the only evidence was in regard to the various acts alleged to have been done by accused 2,3, and 4 in the matter of the conspiracy and the furtherance of the objects thereof. While considering the question of sentence to be passed on the accused No.1 who, in spite of the circumstances aforesaid, was convicted of the offence under S. 120-B, Penal Code, the High Court observed that

"The conspirators whoever they were, had shown considerable ingenuity and daring in carrying out the object of the conspiracy and that it felt no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it was not straight circumstances or financial difficulties which were the basis of the conspiracy but it was the greed for money on such a large scale as could never be regarded as an extenuating circumstance".

It, therefore, directed that the accused No.1 should undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months for the offence under S. 120-B, Penal Code.

4. The application for leave to appeal to this Court filed by accused No.1 was rejected by the High Court. The accused No. 1 thereupon applied for and obtained special leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court. The special leave was, however, limited to the question of law, whether the c