Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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