Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

661. The only other foreign decision we would be required to note is United States vs. Feola 420 US 671, referred to on behalf of the State. We would finally see what was held by a two Judge Bench of this Court in Ajay Aggarwal vs. Union of India, 1993 (3) SCC 609 strongly relied on by Shri Tulsi.

11. The thrust of Shri Ram Jethmalani's argument is that to find a person quilty of conspiracy there has to be knowledge of either commission of any illegal act by a co-conspirator or taking recourse to illegal means by the co-conspirator, along with the intent to further the illegal act or facilitate the illegal means. Though at one stage the learned Addl. Solicitor General sought to contend that knowledge by itself would be enough, he, on deeper thought, accepted that this would not be. But then, according to him, at times intent may be inferred from knowledge, specially when no legitimate use of the goods or services in question exists. To sustain this submission, he also relied on Lauria's case. He has added a rider as well. The same is that so far as knowledge is concerned, the prosecution, in a case of present nature cannot be called upon to establish that the conspirator had knowledge that the goods in question would be used for blasting of bombs at Bombay. This follows, according to the Addl. Solicitor, from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Fegla.

13. The evidence as to how a torch came into possession of A and B was conflicting. There was no evidence that the accused knew, until the journey in the taxi had begun, that A and B intended to commit a criminal offence or that he had any reason to suspect that they intended to do so. It was, therefore, held that there was no evidence as to conspiracy because of lack of evidence that the accused and A and B were acting in concert or had agreed together to commit a criminal offence. It is brought to our notice that this Court in Natwar Lal's case (supra) had also held that knowledge of conspiracy is necessary as appears from what was stated at page 667 of the Report. Shri Jethmalani, therefore, submits that mere knowledge that somebody would commit an offence would not be sufficient to establish a case of criminal conspiracy, unless there be evidence to show that all had acted in concert or had agreed together to commit the offence in question.

23. Our attention is pointedly invited by Shri Tulsi to what was stated in para 24 of Ajay Aggarwal's case wherein Ramaswamy, J. stated that the law has developed several or different models or technique to broach the scope of conspiracy. One such model is that of a chain, where each party performs even without knowledge of the other, a role that aids succeeding parties in accomplishing the criminal objectives of the conspiracy. The illustration given was what is done in the process of procuring and distributing narcotics or an illegal foreign drug for sale in different parts of the globe. In such a case, smugglers. Middleman privies to a single conspiracy to smuggle and distribute narcotics. The smugglers know that the middlemen must sell to retailers and the retailers know that the middlemen must buy from importers. Thus the conspirators at one end at the chain know that the unlawful business would not, and could not, stop with their buyers, and those at the other end know that it had not begun with settlers. The action of each has to be considered as a spoke in the hub - there being a rim to bind all the spokes together in a single conspiracy.

24. The aforesaid decisions, weighty as they are, lead us to conclude that 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 unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. 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. When can charge be framed ?