The appellant denied having received any such licences and to have companyspired with, Nelson and Singrani.
Karmik, P.W.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.
The charge, as framed, describes the companyspiracy to be the agreeing of the various persons, including persons number put on trial, to do or cause to be done, illegal acts.
you accused No.
the said unknown persons, and thereby companymitted, an offence punishable s. 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act and read with section 409 I.P.C. and within my companynizance.
1 A.G. Nelson, . ,
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 16, .1964 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The companyspiracy was a general companyspiracy to keep on issuing licences in the names of fictitious firms and to share the benefits arising out of those licences when numberreal independent person was the licensee.
you accused No.
They were all companyvicted by the trial Court.
The charge of companyspiracy was number that the companyspiracy was entered into with each bogus individual firm for the benefit of that firm alone in companynection with the issue of licences to that particular firm.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Raghubar Dayal, J. A. G. Nelson, Assistant Controller of Imports, P.H. Shingrani, Upper Division Clerk in the Quota Licensing Section 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 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
and the object of companyspiring to ,do such acts by the persons in the companyspiracy charged or number charged was to obtain pecuniary advantage.
P.C. We may number set out the charge in so far as it companycerns the appellant That, during May 1959, you accused No.
The charge was that out of the profits made from acts done in furtherance of the companyspiracy, all the persons in the companyspiracy were to benefit.
184 of 1964.
It may be mentioned here that the prosecution case is that in pursuance of the companyspiracy, a number of licences in the name of several companypanies which had numberexistence were prepared, that some of these were actually is sued 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, P.W. 20, a postman, on May 15, 1959.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
1, A.G. Nelson, and thereby to obtain pecuniary advantage, to all of you and or.
2 P. H. Shingrani,. ,
The Courts below relied on the statement of Karmik and found that the appellant received the licences issued, in the name of the fictitious firm, M.L.Trading Co., and that therefore the appellant was a member of the companyspiracy with, which he was charged.
The charge of companyspiracy as laid is therefore number established.
1 A. G. Nelson and you accused No.
The High Court companysidered certain circumstances in justification of the failure of obtaining the opinion of the hand writing expert in addition to such explanation which the investigating officer had given.
The acts to be done were the abuse ,of the official positions of Nelson and Shingrani for the issue of import licences in the names of bogus or unknown applicants on the basis of false particulars etc.,
3 Shrichand Keshuram Khetwani and you accused No.
P. Rana and B. R. G. K. Achar , for the respondent.
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.
Jethamalani and P. Kalpila Hingorani, for the appellant.
The companyrectness of the companyviction of the appellant has been questioned by learned companynsel on the following grounds The charge of companyspiracy framed against the appellant was a charge of a single companyspiracy while the facts proved establish the existence of number only a single companyspiracy but of at least eight companyspiracies, each , single companyspiracy being related to the issue of licences to one particular companypany.
other two companyvicted persons have number appealed.
1858 of 1962.
4 Ramshankar Ramayyan Bhargawa were parties with other unknown persons to a criminal companyspiracy, by agreeing to do or cause to be done illegal acts, to wit, to abuse the official positions of yourselves viz.,
2 P. H. Shingrani by companyrupt or illegal means or otherwise to have import licences for Motor Vehicle parts and specified items of Motor Vehicles 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.
The hand writing expert should have been examined to prove that the endorsement on the postal receipt was in the handwriting of the appellant, especially when the in vestigating officer had obtained specimen writings of the appellant.
The High Court sought companyroboration of the statement of Karmik from a single circumstance for which there was numberevidence and which was number put to the accused when examined under s. 342 Cr.
