Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi High Court

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Landmark Corruption Case, Quashes Convictions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling today, the Supreme Court of India acquitted the accused in a high-profile corruption case, setting aside their convictions and quashing the judgments of the lower courts.

The bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal pronounced the landmark judgment, which highlighted procedural violations and a failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judgment emphasized the lack of specific allegations and findings against the appellants A-1, A-3, and A-4 under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court pointed out that the Trial Court and the High Court erred in convicting A-4 without proper application of mind and without any specific allegation or finding on merits. Furthermore, the conviction of A-4 under Section 193 IPC was deemed unsustainable due to the violation of Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Regarding appellant A-7, who was charged with forgery and cheating, the Supreme Court noted the failure of the prosecution to establish the handwriting and signatures of A-7 on demand draft applications. The Court held that the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court and the High Court was flawed, and the High Court's use of an improper procedure under Section 73 of the Evidence Act further compounded the error. Consequently, the conviction of A-7 was also set aside.

Quoting from the judgment, the bench stated, "The conviction of A-4 by the Trial Court as confirmed by the High Court is wholly unsustainable and is liable to be set aside." Additionally, the Court declared, "The finding recorded by the Trial Court and the High Court as though A-7 committed forgery and cheating by making applications for the issue of demand drafts in the names of bogus firms is wholly unsustainable."

The Supreme Court's decision in this case highlights the importance of upholding procedural requirements and ensuring the burden of proof is met beyond a reasonable doubt. The acquittal of the accused serves as a reminder of the judiciary's commitment to fairness and justice.

Date of Decision: June 15, 2023

A. SRINIVASULU vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE   

Latest Legal News