Facts- first and second appellant prosecuted for conspiracy of bribing a police officer. Police investigation is going on against the second appellant for saving himself from that. He with the first appellant stopped the police officer on his way and offers him money for stopping the investigation. Such police officer asked them to come to the police station. First appellant goes to the police station with the money and offered that to the police officer on behalf of the second appellant. Police officer arrested them and filed FIR.

Issue – whether the statement made by the first appellant on behalf of the second appellant is admissible against him?

Observation- the court observed that:

• Any act of the conspirator is sufficient on the general principles of agency to make it act of all.
• Under section 10 of evidence act when there is a evidence of a concerted action in furtherance of common intention to commit crime, that the law has introduced this rule of common responsibility, on the principle that everyone concerned in a conspiracy is acting as a agent of the rest of them.
• Section 10 is based on the condition that the court should believe that there is a reasonable ground to believe that two or more people conspired together to commit an offence. The expression in reasonable ground to their common intention in this section is very comprehensive with the result that anything said, done or written by a co-conspirator after the formation of conspiracy against the other whether he entered before or after such formation. It can’t be used in favour of other party that such person was not party to conspiracy. Any act of the conspirator sufficient on the general principle of agency to make it act of all.
• Both second and first appellant approached the police officer to hush up the case is a reasonable ground for court to believe that two or more people conspiring to bribe the police officer.
• First appellant the police officer with money in police station. He done an act in furtherance of common intention.
• The statement made by first appellant on behalf of the second appellant is admissible against him also as the basis of the principle of agency.

Finally the court dismissed the appeal and both appellant are arrested for bribing the public officer.