TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Accused Cannot Be Charged Without Evidence of Fraudulent Inducement or Deception: Supreme Court Quashes Charges in AICTE Fraud Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in a pivotal judgement, ruled that there was no conclusive evidence of fraudulent inducement or deception by the appellants in a case related to the alleged fraudulent acquisition of approvals from the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The apex court reinstated the discharge of the appellants, emphasizing the lack of concrete evidence to establish charges of cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case involved appellants from the Sunshine Educational and Development Society who were accused of concealing mortgage information in their applications to AICTE for starting educational institutions. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had initiated proceedings against them. The legal journey commenced in the Magistrate’s Court and culminated in the Supreme Court.

 

On Deliberate Deception: The Court observed that the appellants’ initial application to AICTE transparently declared the mortgage, suggesting that AICTE granted approvals with knowledge of this encumbrance, thus countering the claim of deliberate deception.

Criminal Conspiracy Allegation: There was insufficient evidence to substantiate a criminal conspiracy. Despite discrepancies in the applications, they did not necessarily imply a coordinated effort to defraud.

Regarding Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The Supreme Court criticized the CBI’s choice to file under Section 482 Cr.P.C. after the 90-day period for a Section 397 Cr.P.C. revision had lapsed. This was viewed as a misuse of the High Court’s inherent powers.

Exercise of Inherent Powers and Statutory Limits: The judgement underscored that inherent powers should be exercised judiciously and not in contradiction to specific remedies provided in the legal code, indicating the High Court’s misapplication of Section 482.

Decision: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and reinstated the discharge of the appellants. The Court concluded that without evidence of deliberate deception or harmful inducement to AICTE, the appellants could not be held for the alleged offence under Sections 420 and 120B IPC.

 Date of Decision: 8th April 2024.

Vipin Sahni and Another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,  

 

Latest Legal News