SRICHAND K. KHETWANI vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Supreme Court held that the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC was valid despite multiple licenses being issued, as the conspiracy was general in nature, involving the sharing of profits from fictitious firms rather than separate conspiracies for each license. The Court distinguished this case from R. v. Griffiths, affirming that the prosecution's failure to obtain handwriting expert opinion did not warrant an adverse inference, as such inference applies only when evidence is deliberately withheld. The conviction was upheld, confirming the trial and High Court's decisions.