Revenue Authority Cannot Vest Land In State Under Section 79A, Suo Motu Proceedings After 11 Years Fatal: Gujarat High Court Campaigning During 48-Hour Silent Period Is Not 'Undue Influence' Under Section 123(2), Election Petition Must Plead How Result Was Materially Affected: Bombay High Court DVDs Carrying Encoded Data Infringe Patent Even If Stampers Are Outsourced: Delhi High Court in Philips’ DVD-ROM Patent Dispute Departmental Exoneration Does Not Bar Criminal Trial If Key Evidence Not Considered: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash PSI’s Corruption Case Can't Claim Irrevocable License Under Section 60 Easements Act Without Pleading It First: Punjab & Haryana High Court Ex Parte Decree Obtained Behind Back of True Owner Confers No Title; Appellate Stage Cannot Be Used to Rescue a Fundamentally Flawed Claim: Supreme Court Order XLI Rule 27 CPC | Appeal Cannot Be Decided Without First Adjudicating Additional Evidence Application: Supreme Court Section 498A IPC | Only Allegation Quarrelling Is Not a Criminal Offence, Cannot Sustain Cognizance: Supreme Court Quash Proceedings Eye-Witness Survives 82 Pages of Cross-Examination: Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Payment of Tax Receipts Is Not A Conclusive Proof of Possession of Property: Andhra Pradesh High Court Spa Owner Who Personally Received Marked Currency And Promised 'Nice Females With Closed Door Rooms' Cannot Escape Trafficking Charges: Bombay High Court No Person Can Transfer A Better Title Than What He Possesses In Property So Transferred: Andhra Pradesh High Court Unsubstantiated Allegations of Illicit Affair and Attempt to Kill Child in Written Statement Amount to Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court Grants Divorce Child Dies Inside Anganwadi Centre After Repeated Complaints About Exposed Wires Went Unaddressed: Chhattisgarh High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognisance, Directs Statewide Safety Audit 'High Speed' Without Mentioning Approximate Speed Not Sufficient To Prove Rash And Negligent Driving Under Section 279 IPC: Himachal Pradesh High Court 'Reverse Passing Off' Is Not an Actionable Tort in Indian Trade Mark Law: Delhi High Court: SARFAESI E-Auction Purchaser Cannot Be Prosecuted For Undervaluation When DRT Has Affirmed Valuation: Jharkhand High Court Republishing Defamatory Facebook Post On Website Constitutes Fresh Offence of Defamation; Prior Publication In Public Domain No Defence: Kerala High Court One Year Custody Not Prolonged In Cases Involving Attack On Police Post With Explosive Substance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail Bribe Demand Can Be Proved Through Electronic Evidence Even If Complainant Turns Hostile: Rajasthan High Court Sand Theft Under BNS And Kerala Sand Act Can Be Prosecuted Simultaneously; Earlier Contrary View Per Incuriam: Kerala High Court Judge Overrules Own Judgment Sale Agreement Executed As Security For Loan Is A Sham Document Not Enforceable By Specific Performance: Supreme 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