Gratuity Is A Statutory Right, Cannot Be Denied On Vague Allegations Of Abandonment: Calcutta High Court Directs Employer To Pay Pending Gratuity With Interest Prosecutrix Is a Victim of Crime, Not an Accomplice — Sole Testimony Sufficient for Conviction If It Inspires Confidence: Bombay High Court Rape Is An Offence Against Society And Not A Matter To Be Left For Compromise: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Under Section 376 IPC And U.P. Conversion Prevention Act Despite Settlement Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Compartmentalized Horizontal Reservation in Sports Quota for MBBS Admissions Total Non-Compliance of Section 42 Vitiates the Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in 25-Year-Old NDPS Case Involving 30 Bags of Poppy Husk An Advocate’s Office Situated in a Commercial Building Qualifies as Non-Residential Use Entitling Eviction under Section 12(1)(f) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Criminal History—Conspiracy Allegations Alone Insufficient Without Direct Role in SC/ST Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Vested Right to Retain Government Accommodation After Losing Public Office — Penal Rent Justified for Unauthorized Occupation: Patna High Court These Litigations Appear to Be Luxury Litigations: Allahabad High Court Imposes Cost on Over 6400 Petitioners Seeking Revival of TET-Based Selection Process Rule 6(2) Is Not a Cut-Off Provision—Supreme Court Declares Candidates Eligible If D.El.Ed. Was Completed Before Selection Implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Cannot Be Halted on the Basis of Belated and Baseless Custody Without Communication of Grounds Is No Custody in Law —Violation of Articles 21 and 22 Nullifies Arrest and Remand: Punjab & Haryana High Court Declares Arrest of Music Producer as Illegal Scribe Is Not a Substitute for Attesting Witness—Will Must Satisfy Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects 45-Year-Old Testamentary Claim Removal From Service With Superannuation Benefits Entitles Employee to Pension: Supreme Court Acknowledgment of Liability Extends Limitation — Pendency of Appeal No Ground to Resist Recovery: Supreme Court Sympathy Cannot Override Binding Conditions of Tender: Supreme Court Sets  Aside High Court’s Direction to Alter Applicant’s Group Classification for BPCL Dealership Land Acquisition | Factory Without CLU Can't Claim Land Release Despite Long Possession; However, Compensation Under 2013 Act Granted : Supreme Court Person’s Identity Is Not Lost If a Machine Fails to Recognize Them: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes LIC’s Rejection Over Biometric Mismatch Mother Cannot Mask Paternity to Satisfy Ego: Bombay High Court Rejects Petition to List Woman as ‘Single Parent’ in Child’s Birth Certificate Transferee Pendente Lite Is Bound by the Decree—Cannot Obstruct Execution Proceedings: Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Revisional Court for Overreach Higher Placement in Seniority List Cannot Be Ignored: Supreme Court Upholds Direction to Consider Contractual Worker for Appointment on Par with Others Regularised CBI Investigation is Not to Be Ordered Routinely on Vague Allegations: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Order Directing CBI Probe in Extortion Case When Aggressors Trespass Armed into a Dwelling and Cause Fatal Injuries, Exception to Murder Does Not Arise: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction under Section 302 IPC Delayed Payment for 50 Years Warrants Reasonable Interest, But Excessive Rates Cannot Be Granted": Supreme Court

Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case

11 January 2025 2:36 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


The High Court quashes the conviction of the accused under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 161 IPC, citing biased investigation.
The Rajasthan High Court has overturned the conviction of Sri Lal, who was previously found guilty of corruption charges. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ganesh Ram Meena on May 22, 2024, emphasized the prejudicial nature of the investigation, which was conducted by the same officer who led the trap proceedings. This ruling highlights significant procedural lapses in the handling of the case by the Anti-Corruption Department.
The court focused on the inherent bias in the investigation process. Justice Meena observed, "Since the trap proceedings were conducted by Mr. Gopilal Sharma, Police Inspector, ACD, Kota, who also led the investigation, there was an evident conflict of interest. Such an officer will always try to justify the trap proceedings he led, which compromises the fairness of the investigation". This dual role played by Inspector Sharma was deemed to have prejudiced the case against the accused, leading to the vitiation of the entire investigation.
The court cited the Supreme Court's stance that bias or prejudice must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In this instance, the fact that the same officer was both the complainant and investigator led to a reasonable apprehension of bias. This situation was seen as inherently unfair and damaging to the accused's right to a fair trial.
The High Court found that the trial court had erroneously convicted the accused under sections of the new Act of 1988, which were not applicable at the time the offense was committed. Justice Meena clarified, "The accused appellant cannot be convicted for offences under sections 13(1)(d)(i) read with section 13(2) of the new Act of 1988, as he was originally charged under the old Act of 1947".
The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and the implications of biased investigations. It reiterated that any investigation must be conducted impartially to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. The court stated, "An investigation led by the same officer who conducted the trap cannot be considered fair and impartial. This bias renders the investigation null and void".
Justice Ganesh Ram Meena noted, "The investigation by Mr. Gopilal Sharma, who was the trap leader, has caused prejudice to the case of the accused appellant. Such an investigation cannot be said to be fair and impartial". This critical observation formed the basis for quashing the charges and the subsequent conviction.
The Rajasthan High Court's decision to overturn the conviction in this corruption case underscores the judiciary's commitment to fair and unbiased investigations. By setting aside the conviction and quashing the charges, the court has sent a strong message about the necessity of impartiality in legal proceedings. This landmark judgment is expected to influence future cases, ensuring that procedural fairness is maintained in the justice system.

 

Date of Decision: May 22, 2024
 

Similar News