"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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,  

 

Similar News