Supreme Court of India Judgements

46790 Judgements hosted as on 02/06/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Corruption

Acquittal Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w S. 13(2) a— Illegal gratification — Demand and Acceptance — Proof beyond reasonable doubt — Where prosecution case regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by public servant (Revenue Inspector) suffered from material contradictions and inconsistencies in evidence of complainant (PW1) and other prosecution witnesses (PW7) Minor discrepancies may not be fatal, but serious contradictions going to root of matter, rendering evidence untrustworthy, are grounds for acquittal.

May 13, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 655 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PARITALA SUDHAKAR Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of 2025 [@…

Corruption Service

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 13(1) and 13(1)(d) — The respondent, an Income Tax officer, was denied promotion due to pending criminal charges and a sealed cover procedure was adopted — Whether the mere grant of prosecution sanction constitutes pending criminal charges, justifying the sealed cover procedure — Petitioner argue that the prosecution sanction implies pending criminal charges, warranting the sealed cover procedure — Respondent states that no criminal charges were pending at the time of the DPC meeting, making the sealed cover procedure unjustified —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, rejecting the sealed cover procedure as the charge sheet was filed after the DPC meeting —The prosecution for criminal charges is considered pending only after a charge sheet is issued — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was found fit for promotion.

Sep 29, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 729 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DOLY LOYI — Respondent ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and R. Mahadevan, JJ.…

Bail Granted Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 12 — Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420, 201 and 120B — Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Section 3 — Manish Sisodia’s bail applications were rejected by the High Court of Delhi — He is involved in cases registered by the CBI and ED related to alleged irregularities in Delhi’s Excise Policy for 2021-22 —Whether the appellant is entitled to bail considering the prolonged incarceration and the right to a speedy trial — Petitioner argues that the trial is delayed, and the appellant has been in custody for a long time — The prosecution has not completed the investigation, and the trial is proceeding at a snail’s pace — ED Contends that the appellant is influential and may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses — The trial delay is due to the appellant’s actions — The Supreme Court granted bail to Manish Sisodia, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and noting the prolonged incarceration — The trial has not commenced despite assurances, and the appellant’s prolonged detention violates the right to liberty — The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and bail should not be withheld as punishment — The court also considered the large volume of documents and witnesses involved — The appellant is granted bail with conditions to ensure his presence at trial and prevent tampering with evidence.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 595 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANISH SISODIA — Appellant Vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal…

Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7(a) – Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence – The appeal challenges the High Court of Karnataka’s decision to quash an FIR against respondent for alleged bribery, based on a complaint by the appellant – The main issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the FIR, which was based on allegations of bribery and corruption against the respondent – The Supreme Court found the High Court’s decision legally unsustainable, noting that it failed to consider direct evidence, such as a pendrive, indicating the respondent’s complicity – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and restored the FIR for further legal proceedings.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 331 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJU RAJAN NAYAR — Appellant Vs. JAYARAJ AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale, JJ.…

Corruption

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 109 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) – The court found that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s orders are not conclusive for the criminal case and that a full trial is necessary to evaluate the evidence – The court analyzed precedents and laws, concluding that findings in tax proceedings do not automatically negate criminal charges for disproportionate assets – The court upheld the charges, stating that the appellants did not provide sufficient grounds to interfere with the order on charge and the framing of charges.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNEET SABHARWAL AND OTHER — Appellant Vs. CBI — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. ….of…

Corruption

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 319 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 406, 409, 420, 457 and 380 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) – Summoning order against police officials – Misappropriating of paddy – Corruption – There appears to be prima facie evidence on record to make it a triable case as against the police officials – Summoning order against police officials is upheld – Appeal dismissed.

Jan 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURDEV SINGH BHALLA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Corruption

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(1)(e), 13(2) and 19(3) – Once the cognizance was taken by the Special Judge and the charge was framed against the accused, the trial could neither have been stayed nor scuttled in the midst of it in view of Section 19(3) of Act – Order of discharge is set-aside – Appeal allowed.

Aug 6, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE — Appellant Vs. S. SUBBEGOWDA — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal…

Acquittal CBI Corruption

(CrPC) – Section 306(4)(a) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 5(2) – In cases where the Special Court decides to proceed with a case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, there is no need to consider the requirement of the approver being examined as a witness in the Magistrate’s Court according to Section 306(4)(a).

Jul 11, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH A. SRINIVASULU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

You missed

Constitution

Maternity leave as a facet of reproductive rights and dignity is a constitutional guarantee, requiring service rules to be interpreted liberally, not restricting benefit based on children from a previous marriage not in the employee’s custody.

Jun 4, 2025 sclaw
Acquittal

A flawed investigation, suppression of material evidence in the form of contradictory witness affidavits, and failure to address glaring inconsistencies render prosecution evidence unreliable, necessitating acquittal to ensure a fair trial.

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw
I P C

Five golden principles for cases based on circumstantial evidence reiterated: (1) circumstances establishing conclusion of guilt must be fully established; (2) facts established consistent only with hypothesis of guilt; (3) circumstances conclusive in nature; (4) exclude every possible hypothesis except guilt; (5) complete chain of evidence leaving no reasonable ground for innocence

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw
State Laws

Appellant Trust’s contentions regarding non-demarcation, encroachment, and non-delivery of possession are baseless; demarcation was done and acknowledged, alleged encroachment is not proven by evidence, and delivery of possession was contingent on execution of lease deed, a condition appellant failed to meet — Respondent Corporation’s actions were in accordance with prescribed procedures and allotment terms

Jun 3, 2025 sclaw