SARDUL SINGH CAVEESHAR versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 161 · Decided: 23-05-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B. JAGANNADHADAS · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
SARDUL SINGH CA VEESHAR 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
(and connected appeals) 
(JAGANNADHADAS, B. P. SINHA and 
GAJENDRAGADKAR JJ.)j 
161 
Evidence-Conspiracy-Criminal breach of trust-Proof of 
bogus character of transactions-Intention of accused-Evidence of 
criminal acts outside the period of conspiracy-Admissibility-Indian 
Evide11ce Act (I of 1872), ss. 10, 14. 
· 
A conspiracy to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of 
the funds of a company by utilising the same to purchase the 
controlling block of shares of the company itself for the benefit of 
the appellants was alleged to have been entered into between 
December l, 1948, and January 31, 1949. It was the prosecution 
case that the modus operandi was to screen the ultilisation of these· 
funds by showing them as having been advanced for legitimate 
purposes and invested on proper security but in fact utilising the 
same for payment to the appellants. One of the main issues was 
whether the loans by way of advance of the funds of the company 
on January 20, 1949, were genuine transactions or bogus or make-
believe, and the question was whether the evidence relating to 
the further transactions entered into outside the period of the 
conspiracy jn 1949 and 1950. with a view to the screening of the 
original transactions, was admissible in law. 
Held : (1) In relation to the main purpose Qf the prosecution 
viz., proof of the bogus character of the transactions of January, 
1949, the transactions of 1949 and 1950 entered into outside the 
period of conspiracy must, having regard to the ramifications, be 
taken to be integrally connected and relevant to make out their 
bogus character, though such evidence may necessitate reference 
to and narration of the acts of the conspirators beyond the peried 
of conspiracy. 
(2) The conduct of each individual co-conspirator including 
his acts, writings and statements irrespective of the time t1> which 
it relates can be relied on by the prosecution to show the crimina-
lity of the intention of the individual accused with reference to 
his proved participation in the alleged conspiracy to rebut a 
probable defence · that the participation, though proved, was 
innocent .. Such evidence is admissible under s. 14 of the Indian 
Evidence Act. 
Makin v. The Attorney General for New 
South Wales L.K. 
(1894) A.C. 57, relied on. 
19S7 
May 23. 
1957 
Sardul Singh 
Caveeshar 
v. 
The State of 
Bombay 
162 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
Per Jagannadhadas J.-Under s. JO of the Indian Evidence 
Act the evidence of acts, statements or writings of a co-conspira-
tor either under trial or not on trial but outside the period of 
conspiracy would not be admissible against the other conspirators 
in proof of the specific issue of tbe existence of the conspiracy on 
the authority of Mirza Akbar v. The King Emperor, (1940) L.R. 
67 I.A. 336. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeals Nos. 53 to 56 of 1957. 
Appeals by special leave from the judgement and 
order dated November 21, 1956, of the Bombay High 
Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 861-864of1956 arising 
out of the judgement and order dated June 1, 1956, of 
the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge for Greater 
Bombay at Bombay in Sessions Case 
No. 27/111 
Sessions 1955. 
A. S. R. 
Chari and M. S. K. Sastri, for the 
appellants. 
K. J. Khandalawala, Porus A. Mehta and R. H. 
Dhebar, for the respondent. 
1957. May 23. The Judgement of the Court was 
delivered by 
lagannadhadas 1, 
JAGANNADHADAS J.-These are 8:ppeals by s~cial 
leave by four persons, who along with one Rammklal 
Keshavlal Jhaveri (since acquitted) were committed 
for trial in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Greater 
Bombay, on charges of conspiracy to commit criminal 
breach of trust of the funds of the Jupiter General 
Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 
Jupiter) and in pursuance of the said conspiracy of 
having committed criminal breach of trust some of 
them being directors and agents of the said company. 
They were alternatively charged for commission of the 
offence of criminal breach of trust by some of them as 
directors and the others for abetting the commission of 
the criminal breach of trust committed by the directors. 
The trial before the Sessions Judge was with the aid of 
a jury. All of them except Jhaveri were found guilty, 
appellants in Criminal Appeals Nos. 53 and 54, Sardul 
Singh Caveeshar and Parmeshwar Nath Kaul, by a 
majority ve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.