Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.
Fakhruddin, Appellant
Versus
The State of M.P. Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1964,
D/- 13-12-1966
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. L. Kohli, Advocate, for Appellant Mr. I. N. Shroff, Advocate, for Respondent 1327
The offence of conspiracy cannot survive the acquittal of the alleged co-conspirators. One accused cannot be convicted unless there be proof that he had conspired with person or persons other than his co-accused. If all the other accused have been acquitted of the charge of conspiracy, one accused alone cannot be held guilty. [Para 6]
(2) Evidence Act, 1872 - Ss. 45, 47 and 73 - expert opinion given – Court must see for itself and with assistance of expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that two writings are by same person.
Both under S. 45 and S. 47 the evidence is an opinion, in the former by a scientific comparsion and in the latter on the basis of familiarity resulting from frequent observations and experience. In either case the Court must satisfy itself by such means as are open that the opinion may be acted upon. One such means open to the Court is to apply its own observation to the admitted or proved writings and to compare them with the disputed ones, not to become a handwriting expert but to verify the premises of the expert in the one case and to appraise the value of the opinion in the other case. This comparsion depends on an analysis of the characteristics in the admitted or proved writings and the finding of the same characteristics in large measure in the disputed writing. In this way the opinion of the deponent whether expert or other is subjected to scrutiny and although relevant to start with becomes probative. Where an expert's opinion is given, the Court must see for itself and with the assistance of the expert come to its own conclusion whether it can safely be held that the two writings are by the same person. This is not to say that the Court must play the role of an expert but to say that the Court may accept the fact proved only when it has satisfied itself on its own observation that it is safe to accept the opinion whether of the expert or other witness. [Para 9]
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
Conspiracy Charge: The court held that the offence of conspiracy cannot be sustained if all co-conspirators are acquitted. A single accused cannot be convicted of conspiracy unless there is proof that he conspired with persons other than the co-accused who have been acquitted [Para 6] (!) .
Forgery Evidence: The court emphasized that expert opinion regarding handwriting is opinion-based evidence and should not replace direct evidence. The court must independently verify the expert’s conclusion by examining the writings and comparing characteristics to ensure the opinion is reliable [Para 9] (!) .
Court's Observation: The court has the authority to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to verify the expert’s findings. The court’s own observation can serve as a means to scrutinize the expert’s opinion, ensuring that the comparison of handwriting characteristics is thorough and accurate [Para 10] (!) .
Standard Material for Handwriting Comparison: The court examined standard writings purportedly made by the accused, but only one was conclusively proven to be authored by him. The other was not sufficiently proven, which affected the reliability of the handwriting comparison [Paras 11-12] (!) .
Expert’s Conclusion: The expert’s opinion was that the disputed writings and the standard writings shared the same individual characteristics, leading to the conclusion that the accused authored the applications in various fictitious names. This established the offence of forgery beyond doubt [Paras 12-13] (!) .
Conviction and Sentence: The court upheld the conviction for offences other than conspiracy, affirming that the evidence of forgery was sufficient. However, the conviction and sentence related to the conspiracy charge were quashed because the accused was acquitted of the co-conspirator’s involvement [Para 14] (!) .
Overall Outcome: The appeal was dismissed, with the exception that the conviction and sentence under the conspiracy charge were set aside. The remaining convictions and sentences were upheld [Para 14] (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
Judgement
HIDAYATULLAH, J. : The appellant Fekhruddin has been convicted under Sections 465, 467, 417, 419, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced in the aggregate to three years rigorous imprisonment, by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. His appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under appeal.
2. As many as seven persons (including Fakhruddin) were presented for criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating and personation. They were alleged to have conspired together to forge applications for permits for corrugated and plain iron sheets in the names of non-existing persons. It was alleged against some of them that in the prosecution of the conspiracy they had committed the several offences above-mentioned. Fakhruddin was one such person. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted only three and acquitted the rest. They were Fakhruddin, one Ali Hussain and Anandilal. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Ali Hussain and a cartman by name Anandilal. Thus of the seven original accused, Fakhruddin alone has suffered conviction.
3. Fakhruddin like some of the other accused who have since been acquitted was in the hardware business. The modus employed in the commission of the offences was to present applications for permits to the Civil Supplies Officer in fictitious names and to obtain permits by pretending to be the applicants. Persons desiring to obtain iron-sheets had to apply on printed forms stating their names, addresses and the kind, size and quantity of the sheets desired. The permits were made in triplicate copies and the third counterfoil was required to be signed in token of receipt of the permit. The permit and one extra copy were handed over to the successful applicants, who on presentation of the permit to the Indore Iron and Steel Registered Stockholders Association, received the items mentioned in the permits. Although the iron-sheets were not rationed, the issuance of permits was with a view to keeping a check so that only genuine users might benefit and the passing of the sheets into the black market prevented. As a matter of fact slackness in or absence of verification of the identity of the applicants and their needs, made it easy for some persons in the trade to resort to such devices to obtain supplies with a view to profiteering.
4. On November 28, 1960, Fakhruddin presented at the office of the Association seven permits. Three of these permits are marked Exs. P-28, 30 and 35. They were in the names of Munnalal, Devilal, and Laxminarayan. These were fictitious names. Before the iron sheets could be weighed and other formalities could be completed, the police arrived and arrested Fakhruddin. It was then found on investigation that Fakhruddin had presented several applications in other fictitious names and the charge in this case is in respect of given Exs. P. 13, 15, 16, 17 and 24 which stood respectively in the names of Manakchand, Surojmal, Hiralal s/o Chotelal, Munnalal, Gulabchand who were all fictitious persons.
5. The prosecution case depends upon the proof if forgery of these applications in the names of fictitious persons with a view to cheating and this necessarily involved the offence of personation. All the offences were said to be part of a big conspiracy in which the several accused in the case were said to be involved. The Sessions Judge, accepting the evidence of a handwriting expert that the writing on the applications and signatures on the permits were made by Fakhruddin held him guilty of forgery. The other offences were also held proved. One other accused Ali Hussain by name was also likewise held guilty and a cartman (Anandilal) was convicted of some of the offences. These two have since been acquitted.
6. In this appeal it is contended firstly, that the offence of conspiracy cannot now stand because Fakhruddin alone is left and it is not established with whom he conspired; secondly, that the offences of forgery were not established, the High Court having gone only on the testi
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
