As per the case facts the appellant an employee of a bank and a custodian of one set of keys for a dual-lock system was convicted for various offenses including ... theft arson and criminal conspiracy related to a bank incident The High Court upheld the conviction leading to the appellant's challenge before the Supreme Court The question arose whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's sole responsibility for providing access to the bank's strong room and safe and more importantly whether a criminal conspiracy between the appellant and co-accused was proven Finally the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the circumstances in which the appellant alone could be held responsible for providing access to the strong room and safe Crucially the prosecution also failed to establish the existence of any agreement criminal conspiracy between the appellant and the co-accused which is essential for a charge under Section B of the IPC Consequently the appellant was acquitted of all charges