iminal Appeal No 42 of 1955
On Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 8th October 1954 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No 315 of 1954 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 6th January 1954 of the Court of the 4th Presidency Magistrate Bombay in Cases Nos
639 40P 1955
H J Umrigar J B Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain for the appellant
Porus A Mehta and P G Gokhale for the respondent
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 by agreeing to do certain illegal acts to wit Firstly 882 that they used as genuine forged bills of entry which included bills of entry Exhibit Z Secondly that they heated the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports Bombay by fraudulently I and dishonestly inducing him to deliver to the firm of J Sobhraj  Co an import licence bearing No 24818948 to import cycles from United Kingdom of the value of Rs 198960 Thirdly that they cheated the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports Bombay by falsely and dishonestly inducing him to deliver to the firm of J Sobhraj  Co an import licence bearing No 20305648 to import watches from Switzerland of the value of Rs 345325 and Fourthly that they cheated the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports Bombay by fraudulently and dishonestly inducing him to deliver to the firm of J Sobhraj  Co an import licence bearing No 25028848 to import artificial silk piece goods from Switzerland of the value of Rs 1211829 and the above said illegal acts were done in pursuance of the said agreement and that they thereby committed an offence punishable under section 120 B of the Indian 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 with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of each of the three illegal acts aforesaid
The learned Presidency Magistrate 23rd Court Esplanade Bombay 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 Bombay and the High Court reversed the acquittal of accused No I and held him guilty of all the offences with which he had been charged including 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 I in his defence was a false and fabricated document and the said document along with its accompaniments was 883 forged or was got forged by or with the knowledge or connivance of the accused No 1 and his co conspirators 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 I was acting in the matter in collaboration with any other co conspirators and the only evidence was in regard to the various acts alleged to have been done by accused 2 3 and 4 in the matter of the conspiracy and the furtherance of the objects thereof While considering the question of sentence to be passed on the accused No 1 who in spite of the circumstances aforesaid was convicted of the offence under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code the High Court observed that the conspirators whoever they were had shown considerable ingenuity and daring in carrying out the object of the conspiracy and that it felt no hesitation in Coming to the conclusion that it was not straitened circumstances or financial difficulties which were the basis of the conspiracy but it was the greed for money on such a large scale as could never be regarded as an extenuating circumstance
It therefore directed that the accused No I should undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months for the offence under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code
The application for leave to appeal to this Court filed by accused No 1 was rejected by the High Court
The accused No 1 thereupon applied for and obtained special leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court
The special leave was however limited to the question of law whether the conviction under section 120 B is maintainable in view of the fact that the other alleged conspirators had been acquitted
The charge as framed under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code was levelled against 4 named individuals the accused Nos 1 2 3 and 4
It was not a charge against them and other persons unknown with the result that if accused 2 3 and 4 were acquitted of that charge there remained only accused No 1 and 112 884 the question therefore arises for our consideration whether under the circumstances the accused No I could be convicted of the offence under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code
Criminal conspiracy has been defined in section 120 A of the Indian Penal Code When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done i an illegal act or ii an act which is not illegal by illegal means such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy
By the terms of the definition itself there ought to be two or more persons who must be parties to such an agreement and it is trite to say that one person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannot conspire with oneself
If therefore 4 named individuals were charged with having committed the offence under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and if three out of these 4 were acquitted of the charge the remaining accused who was the accused No 1 in the case before us could never be held guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy
If authority for the above proposition were needed it is to be found in Archbold s Criminal Pleading Evidence and Practice 33rd edition page 201 paragraph 361 Where several prisoners are included in the same indictment the jury may find one guilty and acquit the others and vice versa
But if several are indicted for a riot and the jury acquit all but two they must acquit those two also unless it is charged in the indictment and proved that they committed the riot together with some other person not tried upon that indictment
2 Hawk
c 47
section 8
And if upon an indictment for a conspiracy the jury acquit all the prisoners but one they must acquit that one also unless it is charged in the indictment and proved that he conspired with some other person not tried upon that indictment
2 Hawk
c 47
section 8 3 Chit
Cr L 2nd ed 1141 R vs Thompson  R vs Manning 12
QBD 241 R vs Plummer The King vs Plummer 1902 2 KB 339 which is 885 cited in support of this proposition was a case in which on a trial of indictment charging three persona jointly with conspiring together one person had pleaded guilty and a judgment passed against him and the other two were acquitted
It was held that the judgment passed against one who had pleaded guilty was bad and could not stand
Lord Justice Wright observed at page 343 There is much authority to the effect that if the appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charge of conspiracy and the trial of all three defendants together had proceeded on that charge and had resulted in the conviction of the appellant and the acquittal of the only alleged co conspirators no judgment could have been passed on the appellant because the verdict must have been regarded as repugnant in finding that there was a criminal agreement
between the appellant and the others and none between them and him see Harrison vs Errington Popham 202 where upon an indictment of three for riot two were found not guilty and one guilty and upon error brought it was held a void verdict and said to be like to the case in 11 Hen
4 c 2 conspiracy against two and only one of them is found guilty it is void for one alone cannot conspire
 Lord Justice Bruce at page 347 quoted with approval the statement in the Chitty s Criminal Law 2nd ed Vol
III page 1141 And it is holden that if all the defendants mentioned in the indictment except one are acquitted and it is not stated as a conspiracy with certain persons unknown the conviction of the single defendant will be invalid and no judgment can be passed upon him
The following observations made by Lord Justice Bruce are apposite in the context before us The point of the passage turns upon the circumstance that the defendants are included in the same indictment and I think it logically follows from the nature of the offence of conspiracy that where two or more persons are charged in the same indictment with conspiracy with another and the indictment 886 contains no charge of their conspiring with other persons not named in the indictment then if all but one of the persons named in the indictment are acquitted no valid judgment can be passed upon the one remaining person whether he has been convicted by the verdict of a jury or upon his own confession because as the record of conviction can only be made up in the terms of the indictment it would be inconsistent and contradictory and so bad on its face
The gist of the crime of conspiracy is that two or more persons did combine confederate and agree together to carry out the object of the conspiracy
This position has also been accepted in India
In Gulab Singh vs The Emperor AIR 1916 All 141 Justice Knox followed the case of The King vs Plummer supra and held that it is necessary in a prosecution for conspiracy to prove that there were two or more persons agreeing for the purpose of conspiracy and that there could not be a conspiracy of one
To similar effect was the judgment in King Emperor vs Osman Sardar AIR where Chief Justice Sanderson observed that the gist of an offence under section 120 B was an alleged agreement between the two accused and when the jury found that one of them was not a party to the agreement and acquitted him of that charge it followed as a matter of course that the other accused could not be convicted of that charge
The assent of both of them was necessary to constitute the agreement which was the basis of the charge
Ratanlal in his Law of Crimes 18th ed page 270 has summarised the position as it emerges from the above two cases in the manner following Where therefore three persons were charged with having entered into a conspiracy and two of them were acquitted the third person could not be convicted of conspiracy whether the conviction be upon the verdict of a jury or upon his own confession
The position in law is therefore clear that on the charge as it was framed against the accused Nos 1 2 3 and 4 in this case the accused No I could not 887 be convicted of the offence under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code when his alleged co conspirators accused 2 3 and 4 were acquitted of that offence
In our opinion therefore the conviction of the accused No I of the charge under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code was clearly illegal
The appeal of the accused No 1 will therefore be allowed to the extent that his conviction under section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 18 months awarded to him as the result thereof would be quashed
We are not concerned here with the conviction of the accused No I of the offences under section 471 read with section 465 and also his conviction for each of the three offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the concurrent sentences of rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of each of them passed by the lower Courts upon him in regard to the same
These convictions and sentences will of course stand


Summary:
According to the definition of criminal conspiracy in section 120 A  of the Indian Penal Code two or more persons must be patties to such an agreement and one person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the simple reason that one cannot conspire with oneself
Where therefore 4 named individuals as in the present case eye charged with having committed an offence under section 120 B
IPC and three out of those four were acquitted of the charge the fourth accused could not be held guilty of the offence of criminal conspiracy