Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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