Criminal conspiracy and corruption charges fail where no agreement or statutory ingredient is proved on the evidence.

Criminal conspiracy requires reliable evidence of an agreement to commit an illegal act or a lawful act by illegal means; suspicion or mere knowledge is insufficient. On the facts, the requisite meeting of minds to misappropriate the gold was not proved, as the shortage and impurity pre-existed the appellant's joining duty and the appellant had reported the issue to the Board. Liability under the Prevention of Corruption Act also failed because entrustment or control of the property, and proof of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position, were not established. In the absence of proved conspiracy, the IPC charges under Sections 403 and 477A also could not stand, and the convictions were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction for criminal conspiracy and for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 could be sustained on the evidence on record.

Analysis: Criminal conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or to do a lawful act by illegal means. Such agreement may be inferred from circumstances, but suspicion or mere knowledge of another's acts is not enough. The evidence showed that the gold was in the custody of A-3, that the impurity and shortage in the gold bar had arisen before the appellant joined duty, and that the appellant had reported the impurity to the Board and sought directions. On those facts, the necessary meeting of minds to misappropriate gold was not proved. For an offence under Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, entrustment or control of the property is essential, and for Section 13(1)(d), proof is required that a public servant obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of position. Those ingredients were not established against the appellant. In the absence of proved conspiracy, liability for the acts of A-3 could not be fastened on the appellant, and the convictions under Sections 403 and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 also could not stand.

Conclusion: The convictions were not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal conspiracy must be proved by reliable evidence showing an agreement to commit an illegal act, and conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires proof of the specific statutory ingredients of entrustment, control, corruption, illegal means, or abuse of office.

---