BIMBADHAR PRADHAN versus THE STATE OF ORISSA.

Citation: [1956] 1 S.C.R. 206 · Decided: 13-03-1956 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1956 
March 13 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1956] 
BIMBADHAR PRADHAN 
v. 
THE STATE OF ORISSA. 
[B. P. SINHA, JAFER IMAM and CHANDRASE!l:HARA 
AIYAR, JJ.) 
lndianPsnalCods.1860 (Act XLV of 1860), s. J!JO·B-Crimi!ial 
conspiracy-Case where the only persons alleged to have been guilty of 
the o.D'ence of conspiracy were the persons placed on trial and only one 
person was concerned with the crinie after the acquittal of the rest of the 
accused and the case where on the findings apart front the persons 
placed on the trial there was the approver who irnplicated himself and 
a number of other prosecution witnesses as having been privy to the 
conspiracy-Distinction between-Crirninal Procedttre Code, 1898 
(Act V of 1898), ss. 225 and 637-0mission to mention the name of 
approver in the charge-Whether occasioned failu,re of justice-Re-
pu,gnancy on the face of record in convicting only one person for 
conspiracy-English and Indian Law-Difference between. 
The appellant and f0ur others were placed on their trial before 
the Assistant Sessions Judge of Sambalpur for offences under ss. 
120·B, 409, 477-A and 109, !.P.O. with having committed the 
offences of criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust in respect 
, of Government property and falsification of accounts with a. view 
to defraud the Government. The appellant was the District Food 
Production Officer a.nd the other four accused persons were a.gri· 
cultural sub-overseers under the appellant and another agricultural 
sub-overseer namely P. was examined at the trial as an approver. 
The Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under all the 
three charges but acquitted the lour sub·overseers giving them the 
benefit of doubt. 
The High Court in appeal allowed the appeal of the appellant 
in respect of charges under ss. 409 and 477-A, I.P.O. but upheld his 
conviction and sentence in respect of the charge of conspiracy under 
s.120·B, I.P.0. observing that in respect of that charge the evidence 
given by the approver got corroboration from other independent 
evidence. On appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court the 
main question for consideration wa.s whether the ruling of the 
Supreme Court in the case of Topan Das v. The State of Bombay 
([1955] 2 S.O.R. 881), governed the present case in view of the fact 
that the appellant was the only person out of the accused persons 
on trial who had been convicted of the offence of conspiracy under 
s. 120-B, !.P.O. 
Held (i) that the case of Topa1' Daa v. State of Bombay was 
clearly distinguishable from the present case as in that case the only 
persons alleged to have been guilty of the offence of conspiracy were 
the persons placed on trial. Thora was no allegation nor any 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
207 
evidence forthcoming that any other persons though not placed on 
trial, were concerned with the crime. On the findings in that case, 
only one person, after the acquittal of the rest of the accused, was 
concerned with the crime and stood convicted of the charge of con· 
1956 
Bimbadhar 
Pradhan 
spiracy. 
As a person cannot be convicted of conspiring with him· 
v. 
. 
self to commit an offence, the Supreme Court gave effect to the; con· Th~ State 01 Orissa 
tention that on the findings and on the evidence, as also on the 
charge in that case, the conviction could not be sustained. But in 
the instant case on the findings of the courts below, apart from the 
persons placed on the trial, there was the approver who implicated 
himself equally with the other accused persons and a number of 
other prosecution witnesses as having been privy to the conspiracy. 
And tlforefore the present case was not on all fours with the case of 
Topan Das v. State of Bombay. 
(ii) The provisions of s. 225, Cr. P.O. were clearly applicable to 
the facts and circumstances of the present case. It had not been 
shown how the omission to mention the name of the approver in 
the charge under s. 120-B, I.P.C. had misled the e,ppellant or had 
occasioned a failure of justice. 
(iii) The provisions of s. 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 
were equally applicable to the facts of the case. 
As the appellant 
did not raisa the point with reference to the alleged illegality or 
irregularity in the charge before the High Court it must be held, ap· 
plying the Explanation to that section, that the omission in the 
charge had not occasioned a failure of justice. 
The contention that with the acquittal of the alleged conspira· 
tor

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.