Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
13th March 1956
SINHA, IMAM AND CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ.
Bimbadhar Pradhan, Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1954.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. S. C. Isaacs, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. Patnaik and Mr. R. C. Prasad, Advocates, with him) for Appellant; Mr. Porus A. Mehta and Mr. P. G. Gokhale, Advocates, for Respondent.
The appellant and four others were placed on their trial for offences under sections 123-B, 409, 477-A and 109, I.P.C. with having committed the offences of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust in respect of Government property, and falsification of accounts with a view to defraud the Government. The appellant was convicted under section 409, I.P.C., and under sections 120-B and 477-Aof the Code and the rest were acquitted. On appeal the conviction of the appellant as upheld under section 120-B of the Code in respect of the charge of conspiracy, while his convictions and sentences under sections 409 and 477-A of the Code were set aside.
Held (dismissing the appeal) : (1) The offence of criminal conspiracy consists in the very agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offence irrespective of the further consideration whether or not those offences have actually been committed. The very fact of the can spiracy constitutes the offence and it is im1lat3rial whether anything have been done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement.
(2) It is not essential that more than one person should be convicted of the offence of criminal conspiracy. It is enough if the Court is in a position to find that two or more persons were actually concerned in the criminal conspiracy. If the Courts below had came to the distinct finding that the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution was unreliable, then certainly no conviction could have been based on such evidence and all the accused would have been equally entitled to acquittal. But it cannot be held that the accused having been acquitted by the trial Court, the particular accused should not have been convicted because the evidence against all of them was the same, where the Court is not satisfied that the acquittal of the other accused persons was entirely correct.
(3) It is essential to bring the charge of conspiracy home to the accused person at persons to prove that there was an agreement to commit an offence between two or more persons. As a person cannot be convicted of conspiring with himself to commit an offence, his conviction cannot be sustained. In the present case, on the findings of the Courts below, apart from the persons placed on trial, there was the approver who implicated himself equally with the other accused and a number of other prosecution witnesses as having been privy to the conspiracy. The evidence of the approver has been found by the Courts below to have been materially can borated both as to the unlawful agreement and as to the persons concerned with the conspiracy. The conviction of the appellant as one person was therefore not illegal.
Section 222 of the Cr.P.C. which requires the particulars of the offence to be stated does not in terms further require that in an offence like conspiracy the names of the co-conspirators should also be mentioned. But though the statute law in India does not make it obligatory that the persons concerned in the crime of criminal conspiracy should be specifically named along with the person or persons charged in a particular trial, it is always advisable to give those particulars also in order to give a reasonable notice to the accused that he has been charged with having conspired with so and so persons named as well as unnamed, to commit a certain offence. If the charge under S. 120-B has added the words and other persons known and unknown," there would be no ground for a grievance on the part of the accused.
But oven if the charge does not specifically mention the name of the approver as having been one of the conspirators, S. 225, Cr.P.C. will cure the defect if the accused is not misled or the charge has not occasioned a failure of justice. Further S. 537 Cr.P.C. will apply and if, though the other accused had been acquitted by the trial Court and though he was the only accused in the High Court, he did not raise the points with reference to the alleged illegality or irregularity in the charge before the lower Courts, under the Explanation to that section it cannot be urged that the omission in the charge has occasioned a failure of justice.
(4) As to what is or what is not a full compliance with the provisions of S. 342, Cr.P.C. must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not ordinarily necessary to put the evidence of each individual witness to the accused in his examination under S. 342. When the accused was put the question Have you got anything to say on the evidence of the witnesses it was sufficient in the circumstances of this case to show that the attention of the accused was called to the prosecution evidence. It could not be said that the accused had been in any way prejudiced by the way he had been questioned under that section. - Sections 342, 537-Nature of examination.
Held: As to what is or is not a full compliance with the provisions of S. 342, Cr. P.C. must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not ordinarily necessary to put the evidence of each individual witness to the accused in his examination under this section. The appellant was put the question, "Have you got anything to say on the evidence of the witnesses? That is sufficient in the circumstances of this case to show that the attention of the accused was called to the prosecution evidence,
Judgement
SINHA, J. : The main question canvassed in this appeal by special leave is whether the ruling of this Court in the case of Topan Das v. State of Bombay, 1956 S. C. 33, governs this case also, in a view of the fact that the appellant is the only person out of the accused persons placed on trial, who has been convicted for the offence of conspiracy under S. 120-B, I. P. C. The point arises in the following way :
2. The appellant and four others were placed on their trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Sambalpur for offences under Ss. 120-B, 409, 477-A and 109, Penal Code with having committed the offences of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust in respect of Government property and falsification of accounts with a view to defraud the Government.
The appellant was the District Food Production Officer at Sambalpur and the other four accused persons were agricultural sub-overseers in charge of their respective areas under the appellant. Another such agricultural sub-overseer was Pitabas Sahu at Bargarh centre. He was examined at the trial as P. W. 25 and shall hereinafter be referred to as the approver.
The prosecution case is that in furtherance of the Grow More Food Scheme initiated by Government it was decided to subsidize the supply of oil cake to agriculturists with a view of augmenting the production of food crops. Cultivators were to be supplied this variety of manure at Rs. 4-4-0 per maund, though the Government had to spend Rs. 7-21-0 per maund. The appellant entered into a conspiracy with his subordinate staff including the agricultural sub-overseer aforesaid to misappropriate the funds thus placed at their disposal for the procurement and supply of oil cake to cultivators.
To bolster up the quantity of oil cakes to be procured, they showed false transactions of purchase and distribution thereof and falsified accounts, vouchers, etc. Thus they were alleged to have misappropriated the sum of Rs. 4,943-4-0 of Government money.
3. A large volume of oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The three assessors who assisted at the trial were of the opinion that none of the accused was guilty. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge in agreement with the assessors acquitted the four agricultural sub-overseers aforesaid of all charges, giving them the benefit of the doubt.
But in disagreement with the assessors he convicted the appellant under all the charges and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for four and a half years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 under S. 409, Penal Code, and to rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Ss. 120-B and 477-A of the Code, the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. The learned trial Judge observed in the course of his judgment as follows : -
"Hence on a consideration of all the evidence as discussed above, I find that the prosecution have fully proved their case that the accused Bimbadhar Pradhan, the D. F. P. O. has conspired to embezzle the Government money. They have also proved that he has got an active hand and in assistance of Pitabas Sahu has embezzled Government money amounting to Rs. 4,943,-4-0 and in that act he has also actively helped Pitabas Sahu in falsifying the Government records by making false entries. Hence all these three charges have been conclusively proved against him.
So far as regards the other accused persons, I have already stated that they are considerably inexperienced and the doubtful nature of evidence against these accused persons and considering the position between the first accused and the other accused persons, I give these four accused persons the benefit of doubt though I do not approve their conduct in this affair.
As per my findings given above, I may state here that this is a case in which we find a person in charge of the entire administration of agricultural and G. M. F. development of a district has not only soiled his own hands by embezzling Government money by corrupt means but has also introd
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
