Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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
 

Latest Legal News