I am getting ready to start my fight against my ex-wife. Section 120-A, IPC is one of the many cases she will face.
Section 120-A of the I.P.C. defines ‘conspiracy’ to mean that when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated as “criminal conspiracy.
No agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy, unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in furtherance thereof.
Section 120-B of the I.P.C. prescribes punishment for criminal conspiracy. It is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is conceived as having three elements:
(1) agreement
(2) between two or more persons by whom the agreement is effected; and
(3) a criminal object, which may be either the ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute the means, or one of the means by which that aim is to be accomplished.
It is immaterial whether this is found in the ultimate objects. The common law definition of ‘criminal conspiracy’ was stated first by Lord Denman in Jones’ case (1832 B & AD 345) that an indictment for conspiracy must “charge a conspiracy to do an unlawful act by unlawful means” and was elaborated by Willies, J. on behalf of the Judges while referring the question to the House of Lords in Mulcahy v. Reg (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 306 and the House of Lords in unanimous decision reiterated in Quinn v. Leathem 1901 AC 495 at 528 as under:
“A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable of for a criminal object or for the use of criminal means. (emphasis supplied)”
The rest of this case can be read from here:
http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydis … name=31538
_________________________________________
Lord have mercy! If the Chief Judicial Magistrate Navsari has a problem understanding the unambiguous provisions of IPC Section 4 and 188 CrPC, can you imagine what the other jokers are like? And how many hapless bastards have they rectally blessed with a judicial gavel suppository that couldn’t afford to move the Supreme Court to read, translate, and explain the simple, straightforward law to those empowered to make critical decisions on our freedom? This doesn’t say much for our (cess-)pool of mentally challenged lawyers either! Regardless, there are citizen profiteers who’d view this decision as treasonous! Don’t you realize this might put a firm stop to a thus far lucrative National Cottage Industry, viz. Exploitation and blackmail of NRI’s and Foreigners? Isn’t it unpatriotic to interfere in Free Enterprise (and freeloading)? But I’m sure, given a little time, our resourceful, tenacious, “Aggrieved” Housewives Club could work up an alternate Plan of Action with our police entrepreneurship and it’ll be business as usual! See? YOU CAN’T KEEP A GOOD GAL DOWN (but it’s fun trying!).