-
by Admin
08 April 2026 5:56 PM
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
