Back
Supreme Court Of India
FRICHAND K. KHETWANI
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Decided On : September 17, 1966
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY - SINGLE CONSPIRACY VS MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES - CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY - INTERPRETATION - EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - HANDWRITING EXPERT - NECESSITY - ADVERSE INFERENCE - EVIDENCE ACT, S. 114, ILLUSTRATION (G).
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Shrichand Khetwani, was convicted of criminal conspiracy along with two other individuals for abusing their official positions to issue import licenses to fictitious companies. The prosecution alleged that the appellant received two licenses issued in the name of a fictitious firm, M. L. Trading Co., from a postman, Prabhakar Karmik.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, rejecting his arguments that the charge of conspiracy was not established as there were multiple conspiracies instead of a single conspiracy, that Karmik was an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration, and that the failure to examine a handwriting expert to verify the appellant's signature on a postal receipt raised an adverse inference against the prosecution.
Issues: 1. Whether the charge of conspiracy as framed was valid despite the existence of multiple conspiracies related to different companies. 2. Whether Karmik was an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration. 3. Whether the failure to examine a handwriting expert to verify the appellant's signature on a postal receipt raised an adverse inference against the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The charge of conspiracy was valid as it described a general conspiracy to issue licenses to fictitious firms and share the benefits, rather than separate conspiracies for each fictitious company. 2. Karmik was not an accomplice as he was a public servant who delivered the registered envelope containing the licenses to the appellant in the course of his duty, and there was no evidence of any prior involvement in the conspiracy. 3. The failure to examine a handwriting expert did not raise an adverse inference against the prosecution as the investigating officer had provided a reasonable explanation for not obtaining the expert's opinion, and there was no evidence that the expert's testimony would have been unfavorable to the prosecution.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, upholding his conviction for criminal conspiracy.
Judgment
RAGHUBAR DAYAL
( 1 ) A. G. Nelson, Assistant Controller of Imports, P. H. Shingrani, Upper Division Clerk in the Quota Licensing S. 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, Prosecution witness 20, a postman, on 15/05/1959. 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, Prosecution witness 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 S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and read with
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
