Conspiracy fails without independent proof after co-conspirators' acquittal, while handwriting comparison sustained forgery and impersonation convictions.

A conspiracy conviction cannot stand where the alleged co-conspirators have been acquitted and there is no independent proof of agreement with another person; the conviction under Section 120-B IPC was therefore set aside. Handwriting evidence is opinion evidence: expert opinion under Section 45, familiar-witness testimony under Section 47, and court comparison under Section 73 of the Evidence Act are all relevant but not conclusive. On the proved comparison material, the disputed writings were safely attributed to the appellant, who had impersonated fictitious persons to obtain permits; the convictions for forgery, cheating and personation were upheld and the concurrent sentences remained in force.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the charge of criminal conspiracy could survive after the acquittal of the alleged co-conspirators. (ii) Whether the convictions for forgery, cheating and personation were sustainable on the handwriting evidence and the court's comparison of writings.

Issue (i): Whether the charge of criminal conspiracy could survive after the acquittal of the alleged co-conspirators.

Analysis: A conspiracy charge requires proof of agreement with one or more other persons. Where all the alleged co-conspirators have been acquitted, the remaining accused cannot be convicted unless there is independent proof of conspiracy with some other person. Similarity of method or the existence of multiple forged applications does not by itself establish a concerted plan.

Conclusion: The charge of conspiracy failed and the conviction under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the convictions for forgery, cheating and personation were sustainable on the handwriting evidence and the court's comparison of writings.

Analysis: Handwriting evidence under the Indian Evidence Act is opinion evidence. The opinion of an expert under Section 45, the testimony of a familiar witness under Section 47, and comparison by the court under Section 73 are all relevant, but none is conclusive by itself. The court may compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to test the soundness of expert opinion and reach its own safe conclusion. On the admitted comparison material, the disputed applications and the proved writing were found to be by the same hand, and the forged applications showed that the appellant had impersonated fictitious persons to obtain permits.

Conclusion: The convictions for forgery, cheating and personation were upheld and the related sentences remained in force.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of the conspiracy count. The conviction under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was quashed, while the remaining convictions and concurrent sentences were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Handwriting expert opinion is relevant but not conclusive, and the court may compare disputed and admitted writings under the Evidence Act to satisfy itself that the authorship is safely proved; a conspiracy conviction cannot stand when the alleged co-conspirators are acquitted and no independent proof of agreement exists.

---