Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of lawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself.... Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use.

80. We may point out that under the principle contained in Section 10 of the Evidence Act, once a conspiracy to commit an illegal act is proved, act of one conspirator becomes the act of the other. For application of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the knowledge of the conspiracy of the conspirator shall be proved.

81. For application of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, there must be a reasonable ground to believe conspiracy exists and certain persons are the conspirators. The prosecution, for application of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, must show that there is a conspiracy in between the accused and another on the one hand, and on the other hand, a conspiracy in between the said another and others to commit certain actionable wrong or offence. If there is no evidence on record except the signature of the accused in file, prima facie to prove the factum of conspiracy, and there is no evidence to prima facie suggest that the signature was made by the accused in reference to the common design of the conspirator after it was first entertained. Section 10 of the Evidence Act is of no use.

86. The only material on the basis of which the charge of conspiracy was framed, as pointed out in the impugned order and the learned Public Prosecutor, is the failure on the part of the Finance Minister to take into consideration of the objection raised by his Finance Secretary and simply cleared the file on 11-12-1995 by signing the same, which tantamounts to an illegal omission, an overt act, which was done in pursuance of the conspiracy.

87. The trial Judge, while relying upon the said material, has overlooked the very important factor that the objection raised by the Finance Secretary earlier was overruled by the former Chief Minister as early as 30-11-1995 and then on the direction of the former Chief Minister the revised note was prepared by the Secretary of the Rural Development Department and the same was signed by the Rural Development Department Secretary and the Finance Secretary on 9-12-1995 and that when Finance Secretary signed on 9-12-1995, he did not raise any objection, since it was a revised note as per the direction of former Chief Minister and thereafter the file was signed by the other officials and other Ministers and on 11-12-1995 the file was circulated to the finance Minister, who in turn perused the file and signed the same on the same date, as there was no fresh objection raised by the Finance Secretary. Therefore, the question of illegal omission to take into consideration the objection raised by the Finance Secretary does not arise. When there was no illegal omission, it cannot be said that the petitioner had knowledge about the conspiracy alleged to have been hatched by others.

90. With this background, we have to see the part played by the petitioner, in order to find out whether he was a party to the conspiracy with the knowledge regarding the existence of a conspiracy to do an illegal act.

91. The petitioner though he was the Finance Minister, was never contacted and consulted with reference to the file circulated by the Secretary of the Rural Development Department regarding the approval of the proposal to accept for the purchase of T.V. sets at the hike price of Rs. 2,000/- per set. The file was sent to the Finance Secretary alone. The Finance Secretary after recording his objection on 13-11 -1995 did not send the file to the Finance Minister, whereas he sent it back to the Rural Development Department Secretary. When this objection was brought to the notice of the former Chief Minister by the other accused, the Private Secretary contacted the Finance Secretary and collected informations regarding the , nature of the objection. This has let to the convening of a meeting at the residence of the then Chief Minister. In the meeting, the very same objection was raised by the Finance Secretary. However, the former Chief Minister overruled the objection and accepted the view of the Local Administration Minister and approved his views and directed to send the revised file. In this context, it is to be pointed out that the Finance Minis Ler was never consulted and invited with reference to this proposal, whereas the Finance Secretary alone was invited. Though the Minister for Local Administration was called to the meeting and he was allowed to give his views for approval of the price hike of Rs. 2,000/-, there is no reason as to why the Finance Minister was not called.