SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial

11 September 2026 2:29 PM

By: sayum


"We are clear in our minds that the prosecution case set up is fabricated and has no legs to stand." Supreme Court, in a scathing judgment delivered on September 1, 2026, set aside the conviction of a former bank official, declaring that the prosecution’s case was entirely fabricated and lacked any legal standing.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran noted that the Central Bureau of Investigation had not only failed to prove its case but had also failed to properly frame the allegations.

Court Raps CBI For Fabricated Prosecution

The case involved an appellant, V. Balakrishnan, who had served as a Branch Manager at the Indian Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, in 1991. He was accused of conspiring with other individuals to sanction loans in favor of domestic help in an attempt to siphon funds. However, the bench observed that the entire premise of the prosecution was based on speculative theories rather than concrete evidence.

Supreme Court Criticizes Lack Of Evidence

The bench emphasized that there was no incriminating material brought forward against the accused to support the charges under Section 420 of the IPC, read with Section 120B of the IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The court observed that the lower courts had merely indulged in conjectures, failing to appreciate the lack of evidence regarding the alleged illegal appropriation of funds.

"Real Estate Business Is Not An Illegal Activity"

Justice K. Vinod Chandran, writing for the bench, pointed out that the prosecution’s attempt to paint legitimate real estate transactions as criminal acts was fundamentally flawed. The court observed that the mere assertion that the accused acted as a middleman or purchased properties in the name of others did not establish criminality. The judgment highlighted that witnesses had failed to identify signatures on critical documents, rendering the prosecution’s theory of collusion "inconsequential and irrelevant."

"That, A4 & A5 were domestic helps of A2, that the loans sanctioned were in fact appropriated by A2, that the mortgaged properties were overvalued, that A1 sanctioned the loans illegally are all just figments of imagination."

Proving The Failure Of The Investigating Agency

The court further noted that the loan amounts had long been satisfied, and the properties were auctioned by the bank to recover the dues. The bench expressed strong disapproval of the fact that the bank had retained excess money from the auction proceedings rather than disbursing the surplus to the legal heirs. The court described this behavior as "intriguing" and expressed surprise that no attempt had been made to locate the legal heirs to pass on the residual funds.

Court Orders Accountability From Bank

In a significant move to ensure justice beyond the criminal acquittal, the Supreme Court called for a report from the current Branch Manager of the Indian Bank, Anna Nagar Branch. The bench ordered the bank to produce title deeds and provide a detailed account of the satisfaction of the loans and the utilization of the surplus auction proceeds. The matter has been listed for further perusal on October 5, 2026.

Clean Acquittal Granted To The Appellant

Finding that the entire prosecution case was a "figment of imagination," the Supreme Court granted a clean acquittal to the appellant, V. Balakrishnan. The court ordered that the appellant be released from custody immediately if not required in other matters and directed the cancellation of all existing bail bonds. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s firm stance against state agencies pursuing frivolous or unsubstantiated criminal charges against public servants.

Date of Decision: 01 September 2026

 

 

Latest Legal News