Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1955 (10) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ills of entry Exhibit Z; Secondly, that they -,heated the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, by fraudulently I and dishonestly inducing him to deliver to the firm of J. Sobhraj Co., an import licence bearing No. 248189/48 to import cycles from United Kingdom of the value of Rs. 1,98,960; Thirdly, that they cheated the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, by falsely and dishonestly inducing him to deliver to the firm of J. Sobhraj Co., an import licence bearing No. 203056/48 to import watches from Switzerland of the value of Rs. 3,45,325; and Fourthly, that they cheated the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing him to deliver to the firm of J. Sobhraj Co., an import licence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are could be the work of only accused No. 1. There was no evidence on the record to warrant any inference that the accused No. I was acting in the matter in collaboration with any other 'co-conspirators and the only evidence was in regard to the various acts alleged to have been done by accused 2, 3 and 4 in the matter of the conspiracy and the furtherance of the objects thereof While considering the question of sentence to be passed on the accused No. 1 who, in spite of the circumstances aforesaid, was convicted of the offence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the High Court observed that the conspirators, whoever they were, had shown considerable ingenuity and daring in carrying out the object of the conspiracy and that i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... egal act, or (ii) an act which is, not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy . By the terms of the definition itself there ought to be two or more persons who must be parties to such an agreement and it is trite to say that one person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannot conspire with oneself. If, therefore, 4 named individuals were charged with having committed the offence under section 120- B of the Indian Penal Code, and if three out of these 4 were acquitted of the charge, the remaining accused, who was the accused No. 1 in the case before us, could never be held guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy. If authority for the above propos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... all three defendants together had proceeded on that charge, and had resulted in the conviction of the appellant and the acquittal of the only alleged co-conspirators, no judgment could have been passed on the appellant, because the verdict must have been regarded as repugnant in finding that there was a criminal agreement. between the appellant and the others and none between them and him: see Harrison v. Errington (Popham, 202), where upon an indictment of three for riot two were found not guilty and one guilty, and upon error brought it was held a void verdict , and said to be like to the case in 11 Hen. 4, c. 2, conspiracy against two, and only one of them is found guilty, it is void, for one alone cannot conspire . Lord Justice Br .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 141) Justice Knox followed the case of The King v. Plummer, supra, and held that it is necessary in a prosecution for conspiracy to prove that there were two or more persons agreeing for the purpose of conspiracy and that there could not be a conspiracy of one . To similar effect was the judgment in King-Emperor v. Osman Sardar (A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 809) where Chief Justice Sanderson observed that the gist of an offence under section 120-B was an alleged agreement between the two accused and when the jury found that one of them was not a party to the agreement and acquitted him of that charge, it followed as a matter of course that the other accused could not be convicted of that charge. The assent of both of them was necessary to const .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates