TOPANDAS versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 14-10-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: NATWARLAL HARILAL BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
88l 
TOPANDAS 
ti. 
THE ST ATE OF BOMBAY 
[BttAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR and B. P. 
SINHA JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), ss. 120-A, 120-B-Cri-
min,i/ conspiracy-Two or more persons must be parties thereto--Onc 
person alone cannot be held guilty-If other alleged co-conspirators 
.are acquitted of the charge. 
According to the definition of criminal conspiracy in s. 120-A 
.of the Indian Penal Code two or more persons must be parties 
to such an agreement and one person alone can never be held guilty 
of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannot con-
spire with oneself. 
Where, therefore, 4 named individuals as in the present case 
were charged with having committed an offence under s. 120-B, I.P.C. 
and three out of those four were acquitted of the charge, the fourth 
accused could not be held guilty of the offence of criminal conspir-
"1cy. 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 42 of 1955. 
On Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment 
and order dated the 8ih October 1954 of the Bombay 
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 315 of 1954 aris-
ing out of the Judgment and Order dated 
the 6th 
January 1954 of the Court of 
the 4th Presidency 
Magistrate, Bombay in Cases Nos. 639-40/P-1955. 
H. f. Umrigar, f. B. 
Dadachanji and Rajinder 
Narain for the appellant. 
Porus A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale for the respon-
.dent. 
1955. October 14. The Judgment of the Court was 
.delivered by 
' 
BHAGWATI 
J.-The accused No. 1, the Appellant 
before us, and accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were charged 
that they, at Bombay, between about June 1950 and 
November 1950, were parties to a criminal conspiracy 
hy agreeing to do certain illegal acts, to wit: Firstly, 
1955 
Topanda, 
v. 
'Th~ State of 
Bombay 
Bba,gr~;afi]. 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1:.1551 
that they used as genuine forged bills of entry which 
included bills of entry Exhibit Z; Secondly, that they 
cheated 
the 
Deputv 
Chief 
Controller 
of 
Imports, 
Bombay, 
by 
fraudulently 
and 
dishonestly 
inducing 
him to deliver to the firm of J. Sobhraj & Co., :m im-
port licence bearing No. 248189/48 to import cycles 
from United Kingdom of the value of Rs. 1,98960; 
Thirdly, that they cheated the Deputy Chief Control-
ler of Imports, 
Bombay, 
by 
falsely 
and 
dishonestly 
inducing him to deliver to the firm of J. Soblm; & 
Co.; an import licence bearing No. 203056/48 to im-
po:t 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 deliYer to the firm 
of J. Sobhraj & Co., an import licence bearing No. 
250288/48 
to import artificial silk piece goods 
from 
Switzerland of the value of Rs. 12,11,829; 
and 
the 
abovesaid illegal acts were done in purouance of the 
said agreement and that they thereby committed an 
offence punishable under 
~ection 120-B of the Inrfon 
Penal Code. There were also charges against all the 
accused 
under section 
471 
read 
with 
section · 465 
and section 34 and also under section 420 read witli 
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of each 
of the three illegal acts aforesaid. 
The 
learned 
Presidency 
Magistrate. 2ird Court. 
Esplamde, Bombav, tried all the accused for the said 
offences 
and 
acquitted 
all of them. The State of 
Bombay. thereupon took an appeal to the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombav, and the High Court reversed 
the acquittal of accused No. 1 and held him guilty of 
all the offences with which he had been charged in-
cluding the offence under section 120-B of the Indian 
Penal Code. The acquittal of accused 2, 3 and 4 was 
confirmed .• 
The High Court, even though it acquitted accused 
2, 3 and 4 of the charge under section 120-B of the 
Indian Penal Code, was of the opinion that the deed 
of assignment put forward by the accused No. 1 in his 
defence was a false and fabricated document and the 
said document along with 
its 
accompaniments 
was 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
883 
forged or was got forged by or with th~ knowledge or 
connivance of the accused No. 1 and his co-conspimtors 
and it was impossible to believe that this conspiracy 
carried out with such meticulous care could be the 
work of only accused No. 1. 
There was no evidence 
on the record to warrant any inference that 
the 
accused No. 1 was acting in the matter in collabora-
tion with 
any 
other co-conspirators and the only 
ev

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