Supreme Court of India Judgements

46640 Judgements hosted as on 10/10/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Corruption

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.…

Corruption Cr P C

Double jeopardy – Hearing to accused – Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed – court is not obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC.

Jun 25, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Surya Kant & J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. SLP (Crl.) Nos. 7628-7630 of 2017 Decided on: 28.04.2023 State Through Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant Versus Hemendhra…

Corruption I P C

Prevention of Corruption Act – IPC – The directions issued in the said original petition for de novo investigation are set aside. The Investigation Officer shall proceed with further investigation in all cases by including the offences under the PC Act – writ petitions challenging the initiation of proceedings by ED shall stand dismissed.

May 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH Y. BALAJI — Appellant Vs. KARTHIK DESARI & ANR. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed

Cr P C I P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 in Cases with Predominantly Civil Character — The court reiterated the principle that criminal cases with overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions, matrimonial relationships, or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves — This principle is applied in the present case, where the dispute involved a loan transaction between the accused persons and the bank, and the parties had settled the matter through the One Time Settlement (OTS).

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Service

The main issue is whether the eligibility criteria requiring AICTE approval for diplomas is valid, given the Supreme Court’s previous ruling that universities do not need AICTE approval for technical courses —The petitioners argued that the eligibility criteria were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling and that they were unfairly excluded from the recruitment process —The respondents contended that the recruitment process was conducted according to the existing rules and that the petitioners were bound by the doctrine of acquiescence —The Supreme Court directed the Bihar Technical Service Commission to prepare a fresh select list of meritorious candidates, considering the previous High Court order and the AICTE’s stance —The Court found that changing the eligibility criteria after the selection process was completed was impermissible and that the petitioners had a legitimate right to be considered — The appeals were disposed of with directions to prepare a revised select list within three months, ensuring that eligible candidates are considered fairly.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Direct Taxation Income Tax

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 139(5) — Revised Income Tax Return — The appellant filed multiple revised returns for the assessment year 1989-90, which were not considered due to being barred by limitation —Whether the assessing officer can consider claims made in a revised return filed after the time limit prescribed by Section 139(5) of the Act — The appellant argued that the assessing officer should consider the claim for deduction of deferred revenue expenditure, even if the revised return was filed late —The respondent contended that the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to consider claims made in a time-barred revised return —The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision that the assessing officer cannot consider claims in a time-barred revised return —The Court emphasized that the assessing officer’s jurisdiction is limited by the time constraints set in Section 139(5) —The Court referred to previous judgments, including Wipro Finance Ltd. and Goetze (India) Ltd., to support its decision —The appeal was dismissed, affirming that claims in a time-barred revised return cannot be considered by the assessing officer.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Coal Mining Bid — Rejection of — Eligibility criteria — Appellants challenged the rejection of its technical bid by Respondent-BCCL for a coal mining project, while the bid of Respondent No. 8 was accepted despite non-compliance with mandatory requirements —Whether BCCL was justified in rejecting the appellant’s bid and accepting the bid of Respondent No. 8, which did not meet the eligibility criteria — Appellant argues that the rejection was arbitrary and discriminatory — The appellant complied with all requirements, while Respondent No. 8 was allowed to submit missing documents later — BCCL argues that the appellant’s bid was non-compliant due to issues with the Power of Attorney — The Tender Committee could seek shortfall documents but not replace them —The Supreme Court found BCCL’s actions arbitrary and illegal, setting aside the rejection of the appellant’s bid and the acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid — The appellant’s Power of Attorney was valid and notarized before submission — BCCL’s acceptance of Respondent No. 8’s bid despite non-compliance was unjustified —Government bodies must act fairly and transparently in awarding contracts — The decision-making process must be free from arbitrariness and bias —The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside BCCL’s decision and any subsequent agreements, and directed BCCL to initiate a fresh tender process.

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw