CASE NAME	Topandas v. State of Bombay, 1955 SCC OnLine SC 33
CITATION	1956 AIR 33, 1955 SCR (5) 881, 1956 ALL. L. J. 161, 1956 SCJ 86, 1956 BLJR 139, 58 PUNLR 178, 1958 BOM LR 492
COURT	Supreme Court of India
BENCH	Hon’ble Justice Natwarlal H. Bhagwati, Justice Bhuvneshwar P. Sinha and Justice T.L. Venkatarama Aiyyar
PETITIONERS	MajoTopandas
RESPONDENT	State of Bombay
DECIDED ON	decided on 14th October, 1955

INTRODUCTION

The case of Topandas v. State of Bombay is a landmark judgment in which the Court held that if three accused have been acquitted of the charge of criminal conspiracy, then the fourth accused cannot be convicted of the same as there is a requirement of two or more members for the case of criminal conspiracy. Direct or indirect evidence may be used to establish the criminal conspiracy charge. Since conspiracies are typically developed in secret and private, it is nearly impossible to provide any concrete proof regarding the criminal conspiracy’s formation date, its members, its purpose, or its intended course of action. For the most part, all of this is up to interpretation. It was thought that a meeting of the minds or agreement is one of the key pieces of evidence to support the conspiracy under this section. It is also one of the most difficult to support because, as we are all aware, the offender does not, on his own, admit to being involved with anyone. It is only under certain conditions that one can demonstrate that the two have a meeting of the minds or an agreement. Therefore, the majority of the time there isn’t direct proof to support a criminal conspiracy, it is dependent on indirect evidence. 

The idea that one conspirator’s act becomes the act of another once a conspiracy to conduct an illegal act is proven is found in Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. The admission of evidence in a conspiracy case is covered in Section 10. It states that any information one conspirator reveals about their shared intention—whether expressed verbally or in writing—can be used to prove the conspiracy’s existence or that a particular individual was a participant.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The accused 1, the appellant, and the accused 2, 3, and 4 were accused of participating in a criminal conspiracy in Bombay between approximately June 1950 and November 1950 by agreeing to commit certain illegal acts. These acts included (1) using forged bills of entry, including Exhibit Z, as genuine bills of entry and (2) deceiving the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, by dishonestly and fraudulently luring him to deliver an import license with a number 248189/48 to import cycles from the United Kingdom valued at Rs 1,98,960. Thirdly, they deceived the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, by pretending to be sincere and convincing him to hand over an import license bearing No. 203056/48 to import watches worth Rs 3,45,325 to the firm of J. Sobhraj & Co.; and Fourthly, they deceived the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports, Bombay, by pretending to be sincere and dishonest inducing him to hand over an import license bearing No. 250288/48 to import artificial silk piece goods from Switzerland valued at Rs 12,11,829; these unlawful acts were carried out in accordance with the aforementioned agreement, and as a result, they committed an offense punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. For each of the three aforementioned illegal activities, charges were additionally brought against all of the accused under Section 471, read with Sections 465 and 34, as well as Section 420, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the conviction under Section 120-B is maintainable because the other alleged conspirators had been acquitted?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument from the side of the appellant

• The appellant argued that since the conviction of the other three accused has been set aside, he cannot be alone held liable for criminal conspiracy. 
• Insufficient evidence supports his direct participation in the suspected illegal acts. 
• The appellant contended that unless direct involvement or mens rea, or criminal intent, was demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, a person’s mere affiliation with or presence in the business that conducted a transaction should not create criminal responsibility.
• According to the appellant, his involvement was insignificant and lacking intentionality.

Argument from the side of the respondent

• The State of Bombay, the respondent, said that the evidence amply proved Topandas and the other accused members had participated in a fraudulent conspiracy to deceive people for financial advantage.
• The prosecution argued that the appellant was heavily involved in the design and implementation of the fraudulent transaction in question, which had been planned as a ruse to defraud the victims.
• According to the respondent, there was enough evidence to demonstrate that Topandas behaved with mens rea, or the intent to conduct fraud. The State argued that the way the entire transaction was carried out suggested intentional dishonesty, so indicating mens rea.

JUDGMENT

The Court noted that it was obviously unlawful for Accused 1 to have been found guilty of the charge under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the accused’s appeal will be granted to the degree that it nullifies his conviction under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the 18-month sentence of rigorous imprisonment that was imposed upon him as a consequence. The conviction of the accused for one of the three offenses under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the concurrent one-year sentences of rigorous imprisonment for each of the three offenses imposed by the lower courts on him in relation to the same, are not matters of concern to us. Of course, these convictions and penalties will remain in effect.

CONCLUSION

Criminal conspiracy is defined as follows under Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code: “A criminal conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done (1) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal by illegal means.” It is common knowledge that one individual cannot be found guilty of criminal conspiracy on their own because one cannot conspire with oneself. According to the definition, there must be two or more parties to such an agreement. Therefore, the remaining accused could never be found guilty of the crime of criminal conspiracy even if four identified people were charged with committing the offense under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and three of them were found not guilty.

There is a lot of evidence to support the claim that no judgment could have been rendered against the appellant had he entered a not-guilty plea to the conspiracy charge, the trial of all three defendants had gone forward on that charge, and the appellant had been found guilty while the other two accused conspirators were found not guilty. This is because the verdict must have been viewed as repugnant for concluding that there was a criminal agreement between the appellant and the others and none between them and him. Furthermore, it is held that the conviction of the lone defendant will be void, and no judgment can be rendered against him if all of the defendants named in the indictment—aside from that one—are found not guilty and there is no indication that there was a conspiracy with specific, unidentified parties.

It seems that the primary goal of adding Sections 120A and 120B to the Code was to try and stop criminal ideas before they became actual crimes that would be harmful to society as a whole. Section 43 of the Code states that an act that is illegal under the Indian Penal Code would be considered the commission of an offense, an act that is prohibited by law, or an act that creates a situation in which civil responsibility could result. The existence of an agreement between the parties is needed to create a criminal conspiracy offense. The crucial element is consensus ad idem, or a meeting of the minds, whether this agreement is stated explicitly or inferred. It is necessary to read the agreement in its entirety and determine its purpose. It is sufficient if the court is persuaded that two or more people were genuinely involved in the plot rather than requiring the conviction of multiple individuals for the crime of criminal conspiracy. The criminal may join the conspiracy at any point before the agreement’s goal is completed, but regardless of when they join, all participants in the crime will be held equally accountable. As long as the participants in the agreement continue to act in a way that advances its goals, the conspiracy is considered to be ongoing.