Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

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

10 January 2025 12:47 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