1966 (9) TMI 138 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the charge of conspiracy against the appellant was framed correctly.
2. Whether the witness Karmik was an accomplice.
3. Whether the failure to examine a handwriting expert affects the case.
4. Whether corroboration of evidence was required for Karmik's testimony.

Issue 1: The charge of conspiracy against the appellant was challenged on the grounds that it described a single conspiracy while multiple conspiracies were proven. The Supreme Court held that the charge accurately described a general conspiracy involving the issuance of licenses to fictitious firms for pecuniary advantage. The Court distinguished this case from a precedent involving separate conspiracies, emphasizing that all members acted with full knowledge of the overarching scheme.

Issue 2: The High Court's determination that witness Karmik was not an accomplice was upheld by the Supreme Court. Karmik's role as a public servant who delivered a registered envelope to the appellant based on prior interactions did not make him an accomplice. The Court found no misreading of evidence regarding Karmik's relationship with the appellant.

Issue 3: The failure to examine a handwriting expert to verify an endorsement on a postal receipt was raised as an issue. The investigating officer's explanation for not obtaining expert opinion was considered reasonable by the High Court. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the absence of expert testimony did not warrant adverse inferences against the prosecution.

Issue 4: The need for corroboration of Karmik's testimony was discussed. The High Court deemed Karmik an independent witness and found no reason for him to falsely implicate the appellant. The delay in the appellant's response to a meeting request was not seen as corroboration of Karmik's statement. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, stating that corroboration was unnecessary when the witness's testimony was believed.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the correctness of the appellant's conviction based on the analysis of the issues raised in the case.