LexSARDAR SARDUL SINGH CAVEESHAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 M"'c!t 18 '" 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964] VOL. SARDAR SARDUL SINGH CAVEESHAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (And Connected Appeals\ (K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHURAR DAYAL and J. R. MuDHOLKAR JJ.) Evidence-Compiracy-Crimi>ial Breach of trust- M caning and proof of rnnspiracy-Evidentiary value of Good charac/er of an accused iii a criminal ca..e-lndian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), ss. 120-B, 409, 109-Indian Evirknce Act, 1872 (I of 1872), as. 10, 53, .55 /<Jxpl. Doubu .Ieopardy-Applicability of rule-Law finally and aulhoriU.tively decided hy Supreme Court as to interpretation of the constiiution-If a substan.tial question of law-Constitution of India, Art... 20 (2), 145 (3). After the discovery of the conspiracy, ten conspirators including the appellants were put to trial before the s ... ions Judge under s. 120-B of th~ Indian Penal Code and also each one of them separately under s. 4-09 read with s. 109 of the •aid Code. The charge was that they, alongwith one Shankar Lal and Doshi, both of them deceased entered into a criminal conspiracy at Bombay and elsewhere between or about the period from September 20, 1950 to December 31, 1950, to commit or cause to be committed cri1ninal breach of trust in rcsptct of Government securities or proceeds thereof or the funds of the Empire of India Life Assurance Co. Ltd., Bombay, acquiring its management and control and dominion over the ~id property in the way of business as Directors, Agents or attorneys of the said company. The learned Sessions Judge con- victed six accused persons under s. 120 B, read withs. 4-09 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. The rest four accused persons were acquitted. Against the acquittal State preferred an appeal to the High Court and the convicted accused persons also filed appeals against their convictions. Thr Govcmment appeal was allowed and the appeals of the convicted accused persons were dismissed by the High Court. These appeals by special leave have been preferred only by fiv• accused pe1sons against their conviction and sentences. In these appeals, the Court pro- ceeded on the basis as it was manifest and indeed not disputed - 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 379 that there was a conspiracy and the only question for con- sideration was whether all or some of the appellants were parties to it. Held, that the essence of conspiracy is that there should be an agreement between persons to do one or other of the acts described in the section. The said agreement may be proved by direct evidence or may be inferred from acts and conduct of the parties. But s. 10 of the Evidence Act intro· duces the doctrine of agency and if the conditions laid down therein arc satisfied, the acts done by one are admissible against the co-conspirators. The section can be analysed as follows : ( 1) There shall be a prima facie evidence affording a rca'°n· able ground for a court to believe that two or more persons are members of a conspiracy; (2) if the said condition is ful- filled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to their common intention will be evidence against the other; (3) anything said, done or written by him after the intention was formed by any one of them; (4) if it would also be relevant for the said purp'>SC against another who entered the conspiracy whether it was said, done or written before he entered the conspiracy or after he left it; and (5) it can only be used against a co-conspirator and not in his favour. Held, that so far as the appellant in criminal appeal No. 82/62 is concerned, applying the test laid down by this Court, the two conspiracies are not the same offence. The ingredients of both the offences are totally different and they do not form the same offence within the meaning of Art. 20 (2) of the Constitution and, therefore, that Article has no relevance to the present case. Further, there are no permissible grounds for upsetting the concurrent findings of both the courts below that the appellant was a member of the conspiracy. Lee Roy Frey v. The Superintendent, District Jail, Amritsar, [1958] S. C.R. 822 and The State of Bombay v. S. L. Apte, [1961] 3 S. C.R. 107, relied on. Sardul Singh Cavee.har v. State of Bombay, [1958] S.C.R. 161, referred to. As the question raised regarding interpretation of Art. 20 (2) of the constitution has already been decided by this Court, it cann
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.