1996 (4) TMI 515 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies criminal conspiracy ingredients, emphasizes intent from knowledge. Charge can be framed based on probability.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. Versus Som Nath Thapa and Ors.

The Supreme Court clarified the ingredients of 'criminal conspiracy' under Section 120-A of the Penal Code, emphasizing the inference of intent from ... - Issues Involved1. Ingredients of 'criminal conspiracy' u/s 120-A of the Penal Code.2. When can charge be framedRs.3. Effect of repeal of TADA.Summary1. Ingredients of 'criminal conspiracy' u/s 120-A of the Penal CodeThe Supreme Court examined the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy as defined in Section 120-A of the Penal Code. It was noted that conspiracy involves either doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. The court emphasized that intent can sometimes be inferred from knowledge, especially when no legitimate use of goods or services exists. The prosecution need not establish that the conspirator knew the specific illegal use, as long as the goods or services could not be put to any lawful use.2. When can charge be framedRs.The Court clarified that a charge can be framed if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. This means that if the materials on record suggest that the commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a prima facie case exists. At the stage of framing of charge, the probative value of the materials cannot be assessed, and the materials must be accepted as true.3. Effect of repeal of TADAThe Court held that the repeal of TADA does not affect ongoing investigations or trials. Section 1(4) of TADA ensures that any investigation, inquiry, or trial initiated before the Act's expiry continues until final conclusion and determination.Factual Aspects of the AppealsAbu Asim AzmiThe individual charge against Abu Asim Azmi was that he financed the travel of individuals for weapon training in Pakistan. The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish that the funds came from Azmi's own resources, leading to his discharge.Amjad Aziz MeharbakshAmjad Aziz Meharbaksh was charged with allowing his premises to be used for storing arms and ammunition. The Court found that his conduct did not show intentional aiding of the conspiracy, leading to his discharge.Raju @ Rajucode JainRaju was charged with aiding the transportation of arms and explosives. The Court found sufficient prima facie evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy, including financial assistance and providing vehicles with concealed compartments for smuggling, leading to the dismissal of his appeal.Somnath ThapaSomnath Thapa, an Additional Collector of Customs, was charged with facilitating the smuggling of arms and explosives by not properly enforcing customs checks. The Court found sufficient evidence to frame charges against him but did not find grounds to cancel his bail.ConclusionThe appeals of Abu Asim Azmi and Amjad Aziz Meharbaksh were allowed, resulting in their discharge. The appeals of Raju @ Rajucode Jain and Somnath Thapa were dismissed. The State's appeal for cancellation of Thapa's bail was also dismissed.