TOPANDAS VS THE STATE OF BOMBAY ON 14 OCT 1955

 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT 

Important details of criminal conspiracy under Indian law are covered in the 1955 case of  Topandas v. The State of Bombay, specifically the requirement that there be several  participants for a conspiracy accusation to be upheld. In this ruling, Justice Natwarlal H.  Bhagwati emphasizes the need for at least two parties to be involved in a criminal agreement,  emphasizing the legal premise that one cannot conspire alone. 

Four people in this case, including the appellant Topandas, were accused of participating in a  criminal conspiracy to carry out several unlawful acts related to import licenses. The accused  included utilizing fake bills of entry and deceitfully influencing Bombay’s Deputy Chief  Controller of Imports to provide import permits for items such as watches, bicycles, and fake  silk pieces. 

Initially, the Presidency Magistrate cleared all four of the accused. A High Court appeal by  the State of Bombay, however, overturned Topandas’s acquittal and found him guilty of  conspiracy in violation of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) despite the other co accused’s acquittal. Topandas thereupon requested special permission to file an appeal with  the Supreme Court, especially contesting the validity of his conviction because the other  accused conspirators had been found not guilty. In the end, the Supreme Court overturned  Topandas’s conviction under Section 120-B IPC, ruling that one person could not be found  guilty of conspiracy when all other defendants had been found not guilty. 

1. ) FACTS OF THE CASE

Parties Involved: By Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant, Topandas, and  three other people were accused of criminal conspiracy (IPC).  

Charges: It was claimed that the defendants planned to carry out several unlawful activities,  such as using falsified documents of entry, getting import permits for watches, bicycles, and  fake silk products from the Deputy Chief Controller of imports in fraud 

Trial Findings: All four defendants were found not guilty of the accusations by the  Presidency Magistrate. 

Appeal: The State of Bombay filed an appeal with the High Court, which upheld the other  three accused people’s acquittals while overturning Topandas’s conspiracy conviction. Supreme Court Appeal: Topandas then requested special permission to file an appeal,  arguing that his conviction was erroneous in light of his co-accused’s acquittals. 

1. ) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 
2. The requirement for multiple parties to constitute a valid conspiracy, as outlined  in Section 120-A of the IPC.i
3. Whether the acquittal of the other accused rendered the conviction of Topandas  legally untenable, given that one cannot conspire alone. 
4. E) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS 

The petitioner contended that his conviction under Section 120-B was unconstitutional  because all co-accused had been acquitted, underlining that conspiracy requires at least two  people. He argued there was insufficient evidence to connect him to any co-conspirators. He  cited examples that show that if all co-accused are acquitted, the remaining accused cannot  be convicted of conspiracy. Topandas pointed out that the charges under Sections 471, 465,  and 420 were distinct and could not establish a conspiracy conviction. He argued that  condemning him based on the acquittal of others violated his right to a fair trial iiand due  process.  

1. ) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS 

Despite the other accused’s acquittal, the respondent claimed Topandas was involved in a  conspiracy. They argued that his activities demonstrated a clear intent to do criminal acts. The respondent claimed that the illegal conduct imputed to Topandas was part of a bigger  scheme, implying that his participation was critical to the conspiracy, even if others were  cleared. They referenced case law to show that a conviction might still stand provided the  evidence sufficiently indicated that the accused behaved with conspiracy purposes, regardless  of the status of the co-accused. The respondent underlined the necessity of upholding the law  and discouraging similar actions, claiming that acquitting Topandas would jeopardize the  integrity of the legal system.

1. ) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS
2. Indian Penal Code (IPC),  

▪ Section 120-A 

▪ Section 120-B 

▪ Section 471iii 

▪ Section 465iv 

▪ Section 420v 

1. ) JUDGEMENT 

On October 14, 1955, the Supreme Court of India rendered its decision in the case of  Topandas v. The State of Bombay. The following are the main points of the decision:  

The Suspension of Conviction Under Section 120-B:  

The conviction of Topandas for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian  Penal Code was deemed void by the court. The justification behind this was that a  conspiracy needs the participation of two or more people. As the other three suspects  were found not guilty, a legitimate conspiracy involving only Topandas could not exist.  

Legal Principle: 

The Court highlighted the principle that one person cannot collude on their own. It was  emphasized that at least two people had to agree to do an illegal act for there to be a  legitimate conspiracy allegation. Legal literature and precedents backed this concept,  which says that if all co-accused but one is found not guilty, the remaining accused must  likewise be found not guilty unless there is proof of a conspiracy with a person who is not  mentioned in the accusation. 

Reference to Precedents: 

The verdict cites judicial precedents, such as The King v. Plummervi, which state that if  everyone but one person charged with conspiracy is acquitted, the conviction of the  remaining accused cannot stand.

Upholding Other Convictions: 

While the Court reversed Topandas’ conviction under Section 120-B, it sustained his  convictions under Sections 471 (using falsified papers), 465 (forgery), and 420 (cheating).  The Court noted that these charges were separate from the conspiracy charge and had a  proper legal basis. 

1. ) CONCLUSION : 

The Supreme Court concluded that the conviction for conspiracy was illegal and  directed that Topandas’s sentence related to that conviction be set aside. However, his  sentences for the other offences remained intact. 

1. J) REFERENCES 
2. Important Statutes Referred 
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)