- (1.) A. G. Nelson, Assistant Controller of Imports, P. H. Shingrani, Upper Division Clerk in the Quota Licensing Section of the Office of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Bombay, Shrichand Khetwani, appellant, and Ramshankar Ramayan Bhargava, were tried of an offence punishable under S. 120-B read with S. 409 , I. P. C. and S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They were all convicted by the trial Court. On appeal, the High Court acquitted Bhargava and dismissed the appeals of the other three persons. The present appeal is by Khetwani, by special leave. The other two convicted persons have not appealed.
(2.) It may be mentioned here that the prosecution case is that in pursuance of the conspiracy, a number of licences in the name of several companies which had no existence were prepared, that some of these were actually issued and that two of those licences issued were in the name of M. L Trading Co., Bombay, and were delivered to the appellant by Prabhakar Karmik, P. W. 20, a postman, on May 15, 1959. The appellant denied having received any such licences and to have conspired with Nelson and Shingrani. The Courts below relied on the statement of Karmik and found that the appellant received the licences issued in name of the fictitious firm, M. L. Trading Co., and that, therefore, the appellant was a member of the conspiracy with which he was charged.
(3.) The correctness of the conviction of the appellant has been questioned by leaned counsel on the following grounds : 1. The charge of conspiracy framed against the appellant was a charge of a single conspiracy while the facts proved establish the existence of not only a single conspiracy but of at least eight conspiracies, each single conspiracy being related to the issue of licences to one particular company. The charge of conspiracy as laid is, therefore, not established. 2. Karmik, P. W. 20, was an accomplice on account of the circumstances urged, but the High Court misread the evidence by stating that there was a state of intimate relationship between the appellant and Karmik. 3. The handwriting expert should have been examined to prove that the endorsement on the postal receipt was in the handwriting of the appellant, especially when the investigating officer had obtained specimen writings of the appellant. The High Court considered certain circumstances in justification of the failure of obtaining the opinion of the handwriting expert in addition to such explanation which the investigating officer had given. 4. The High Court sought corroboration of the statement of Karmik from a single circumstance for which there was no evidence and which was not put to the accused when examined under S. 342, Cr. P. C.;