The main legal point established in the judgment is that the framing of charges for criminal conspiracy is not a determination of guilt but a notification to the accused of the matter with which he is charged. The judgment also emphasizes the principles of proving criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. Petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.8.2012 passed by Special Judge (Forests), Shimla in case No.2-S/7 of 2009, titled as State of H.P. versus H. S. Thakur and others. In terms of the impugned order, petitioner stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code alone, whereas co-accused stand charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 468, 415/420, 471, 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, one of the accused person has also been charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

.

2. Before I deal with the legal issue, facts leading to the filing of challan before the trial Court, as noticed by the Court, are reproduced herein below:

“I have gone through the Charge-sheet and other documents. As per prosecution case Sh. H.S. Thakur was Registering & Licencing Authority (Rural), Shimla and Sh. Kamal Kumar Rohal was the Licencing Clerk. Rajeev Chauhan and Gian Singh owned and possessed one truck bearing No.HP-21-0407 and driver was Ajeet Singh. In an accident he died on 18.9.1996. He possessed driving licence No.520/93/SDB. Gian Chand Chauhan moved an application in February, 1997 to RLA, Rural, Shimla for LTV endorsement and the application form was never signed by Ajeet Singh and most of the columns were blank. No medical was annexed. It was never disclosed that Ajeet Singh had died in September, 1996. Without complying with the mandatory requirement of rules accused Kamal Kumar Rohal processed the application and Hukam Singh Thakur signed the endorsement and issued the licence. In January, 1997 a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act was preferred by Geeta for claiming compensation in respect of death of the occupant of the truck and the award was passed fastening the liability on Insurance Company though Insurance Company had taken the stand that driver did not possess the valid and effective driving licence. Matter was taken in appeal by the Insurance Company to the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. and it came to the notice of Hon’ble High Court that RLA, Rural Shimla had made endorsement for LTV without verifying the status of the driver, though driver had died in September, 1996. The relevant columns were blank and thus Hon’ble High Court of H.P. directed inquiry against RLA, Rural Shimla. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. inquiry was made and present challan was preferred. During the course of investigation documents were seized. It has been revealed in the challan that Rajeev Chauhan moved an application before the SDJM, Rajgarh and the application was allowed by the Court and documents came in possession [including DL] of Rajeev Chauhan. A claim was preferred before the Workman Commissioner, Shimla and original licence was not produced, yet photocopy was placed on record.”

3. In my considered view, there is no merit in the present petition. The law as to whether a person can be charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code alone, is now well settled.

4. In fact, Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the year 1956 itself, in Bimbadhar Pradhan versus State of Orissa, A.I.R. 1956 Supreme Court 469 settled this proposition of law. Significantly, the Court took into account its earlier decision in Topandas versus State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1956 SC 33, and held that the offence of criminal conspiracy consists in the very agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offence, irrespective of further consideration whether or not those offences have actually been committed. The very fact of conspiracy constitutes the offence and it is immaterial whether anything has been done in pursuance of the unlawful agreement. 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 tw