A charge of conspiracy to issue import licenses to fictitious firms constitutes a single conspiracy, not multiple conspiracies, if each member of the conspiracy joined with the full knowledge of the modus operandi and with the intention of sharing the profits.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - CONSPIRACY - SINGLE CONSPIRACY VS MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES - CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY TO ISSUE IMPORT LICENCES TO FICTITIOUS FIRMS - WHETHER CONSTITUTES SINGLE CONSPIRACY OR MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES - EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY - CORROBORATION OF ACCOMPLICE'S TESTIMONY.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Shrichand Khetwani, was convicted of conspiracy to issue import licenses to fictitious firms. The prosecution alleged that the appellant conspired with two public servants, Nelson and Shingrani, to abuse their official positions and issue import licenses to bogus or unknown applicants on the basis of false particulars. The appellant received two of the licenses issued in the name of a fictitious firm, M. L. Trading Co.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the charge of conspiracy as framed was not defective, as it described a single conspiracy to issue licenses to fictitious firms and share the profits arising from those licenses. The Court found that the evidence established the existence of a single conspiracy, not multiple conspiracies, as each member of the conspiracy joined with the full knowledge of the modus operandi and with the intention of sharing the profits. The Court also held that the trial court was not required to examine a handwriting expert to prove that the appellant had written the endorsement on the postal receipt, as the investigating officer had provided a reasonable explanation for not obtaining the expert's opinion.
Issues: 1. Whether the charge of conspiracy as framed was defective for alleging multiple conspiracies instead of a single conspiracy. 2. Whether the evidence established the existence of a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies. 3. Whether the trial court erred in not examining a handwriting expert to prove that the appellant had written the endorsement on the postal receipt.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The charge of conspiracy as framed was not defective, as it described a single conspiracy to issue licenses to fictitious firms and share the profits arising from those licenses. The fact that licenses were issued in the names of eight different companies did not make out the case against the appellant and the other conspirators to be a case of eight different conspiracies, as each member of the conspiracy joined with the full knowledge of the modus operandi and with the intention of sharing the profits. 2. The evidence established the existence of a single conspiracy, not multiple conspiracies, as each member of the conspiracy joined with the full knowledge of the modus operandi and with the intention of sharing the profits. 3. The trial court was not required to examine a handwriting expert to prove that the appellant had written the endorsement on the postal receipt, as the investigating officer had provided a reasonable explanation for not obtaining the expert's opinion.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld his conviction for conspiracy.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : A. G. Nelson, Assistant Controller of Imports, P. H. Shingrani, Upper Division Clerk in the Quota Licensing Section of the Office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, Shrichand Khetwani, appellant, and Ramshankar Ramayan Bhargava, were tried of an offence punishable under S. 120-B read with S. 409 , I. P. C. and S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They were all convicted by the trial Court. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Bhargava and dismissed the appeals of the other three persons. The present appeal is by Khetwani, by special leave. The other two convicted persons have not appealed.

2. It may be mentioned here that the prosecution case is that in pursuance of the conspiracy, a number of licences in the name of several companies which had no existence were prepared, that some of these were actually issued and that two of those licences issued were in the name of M. L Trading Co., Bombay, and were delivered to the appellant by Prabhakar Karmik, P. W. 20, a postman, on May 15, 1959. The appellant denied having received any such licences and to have conspired with Nelson and Shingrani. The Courts below relied on the statement of Karmik and found that the appellant received the licences issued in name of the fictitious firm, M. L. Trading Co., and that, therefore, the appellant was a member of the conspiracy with which he was charged.

3. The correctness of the conviction of the appellant has been questioned by leaned counsel on the following grounds :

1. The charge of conspiracy framed against the appellant was a charge of a single conspiracy while the facts proved establish the existence of not only a single conspiracy but of at least eight conspiracies, each single conspiracy being related to the issue of licences to one particular company. The charge of conspiracy as laid is, therefore, not established.

2. Karmik, P. W. 20, was an accomplice on account of the circumstances urged, but the High Court misread the evidence by stating that there was a state of intimate relationship between the appellant and Karmik.

3. The handwriting expert should have been examined to prove that the endorsement on the postal receipt was in the handwriting of the appellant, especially when the investigating officer had obtained specimen writings of the appellant. The High Court considered certain circumstances in justification of the failure of obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert in addition to such explanation which the investigating officer had given.

4. The High Court sought corroboration of the statement of Karmik from a single circumstance for which there was no evidence and which was not put to the accused when examined under S. 342, Cr. P. C.

4. We may now set out the charge in so far as it concerns the appellant:

"That, during May 1959, you accused No. l A. G. Nelson, ........... accused No. 2 P. H. Shingrani,......, you accused No. 3 Shrichand Keshuram Khetwani and you accused No. 4 Ramshankar Ramayan Bhargawa were parties with other unknown persons to a criminal conspiracy, by agreeing to do or cause to be done illegal acts, to wit, to abuse the official positions of yourselves, viz., you accused No. 1, A. G. Nelson and you accused No. 2 P. H. Shingrani by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise to have import licences for Motor Vehicle Parts and specified items of Motor Vehicle Parts issued in the names of bogus or unknown applicants on the basis of false numbers of quota certificates, which were never produced with applications, by misusing, for the said purpose, import licence forms from out of Import Licence Books in the custody of you, accused No. 1, A. G. Nelson, and thereby to obtain pecuniary advantage to all of you and/or the said unknown persons, and thereby committed an offence punishable under S. 120-B, I. P. C. read with Section 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and read with S. 409, I. P. C. and withi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document