Conspiracy conviction sustained on a single common criminal design, with independent testimony accepted without mandatory handwriting expert evidence.

A conviction for conspiracy is sustainable where the charge and evidence disclose a single common criminal design, even if the scheme operated through different fictitious firms; the facts did not require the case to be split into separate conspiracies, and the conviction was upheld. The postal witness was treated as an independent witness rather than an accomplice because he only delivered the registered cover in the course of duty, so corroboration was not legally required. The absence of handwriting expert evidence did not undermine the prosecution case, as no rule requires expert opinion in every disputed handwriting matter and no adverse inference arose from non-production of such evidence. The appeal therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for conspiracy and allied offences was unsustainable because the proved facts disclosed multiple conspiracies instead of the single conspiracy charged, whether the postal witness was an accomplice whose evidence required corroboration, whether non-examination of a handwriting expert undermined the prosecution case, and whether the witness's evidence lacked proper corroboration.

Analysis: The charge alleged a general conspiracy to abuse official positions for issuing import licences in the names of fictitious firms and to share the resulting gains; it did not allege separate conspiracies confined to each fictitious firm. The fact that licences were issued in the names of different bogus companies did not, by itself, split the case into several independent conspiracies, because the evidence showed a common criminal design and participation with knowledge of the modus operandi. The postal witness was not an accomplice, since he merely delivered the registered cover in the course of duty and the Court accepted his evidence as that of an independent witness. The absence of a handwriting expert's opinion did not warrant an adverse inference, because the prosecution had not withheld evidence and no rule requires expert evidence in every disputed handwriting case. Once the witness was believed, corroboration was not legally necessary, and the subsequent conduct relied upon did not affect the acceptability of the witness's testimony.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for conspiracy is sustainable where the charge and the evidence disclose a single common criminal design, and the Court is entitled to act on credible independent testimony without insisting on expert handwriting evidence or corroboration unless the witness is shown to be an accomplice.

---