Category: Corruption

PCA & IPC – HELD the recovery of the tickets is found to have not been made in accordance with law, nor the seized tickets could be connected to the three different buses and the conductors manning the said buses (the appellants), it would not be safe to rely upon the unconfirmed tickets to connect them to the appellants – Prosecution did not proceed with application for secondary evidence qua enquiry report.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH JARNAIL SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

(CrPC) – S 482 – (IPC) – Ss 420 and 120B – P C Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – Allegations of corruption while allotting 10 plots arbitrarily to their family members by hatching the criminal conspiracy by public servant – powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the Court – While quashing the criminal proceedings the High Court has not at all adverted to itself the aspects and has embarked upon an enquiry as to the reliability and genuineness of the evidence collected during the investigation as if the High Court was conducting the mini-trial – Impugned order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondents is unsustainable – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ODISHA — Appellant Vs. PRATIMA MOHANTY ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal Nos.…

Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 – Section 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) – Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 – Section 120B – – Merely because the offence of the conspiracy may be involved, investigation into the substantive offence, i.e., in the present case, offence under the PC Act which is cognizable is not required to await a sanction from the Magistrate, as that would lead to a considerable delay and affect the investigation and it will derail the investigation – Therefore, the High Court has erred in quashing the criminal proceedings on the ground that as the offence under Section 120B which is a non-cognizable, prior sanction as required under Section 155 of J&K Cr.P.C. is not obtained – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DR. SALEEM UR REHMAN — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S.…

Preliminary Enquiry by CBI – Institution of a Preliminary Enquiry in cases of corruption is not made mandatory before the registration of an FIR under the CrPC, PC Act or even the CBI Manual, for this Court to issue a direction to that affect will be tantamount to stepping into the legislative domain – In case the information received by the CBI, through a complaint or a “source information” under Chapter 8, discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it can directly register a Regular Case

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THOMMANDRU HANNAH VIJAYALAKSHMI @ T. H. VIJAYALAKSHMI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

Demand of bribe – At the stage of framing of the charge and/or considering the discharge application, the mini trial is not permissible – At this stage, it is to be noted that even as per Section 7 of the PC Act, even an attempt constitutes an offence – Therefore, the High Court has erred and/or exceeded in virtually holding a mini trial at the stage of discharge application

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF RAJASTHAN — Appellant Vs. ASHOK KUMAR KASHYAP — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal…

Enquiry at the Stage of Pre-Registration of FIR – Permissibility – Such a preliminary enquiry would be permissible only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not and only thereafter FIR would be registered – Therefore, such a preliminary enquiry would be in the interest of the alleged accused also against whom the complaint is made.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHARAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. )…

Illegal Gratification – Reduction in sentence – Accused is a senior citizen aged about 70 years and already dismissed from service – Sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the Special Court, confirmed by the High Court, is reduced to one year and one month rigorous imprisonment – Appeal partly allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH S. SUNDARA KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU — Respondent ( Before…

Misappropriation of public funds – Bank Employee – In banking business absolute devotion, integrity and honesty is a sine qua non for every bank employee. High Court has committed an apparent error in setting aside the order of dismissal of the respondent confirmed in departmental appeal by order – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and…

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – There are no pleadings by the public servants with regard to the prejudice caused to them on account of non-obtaining of prior consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act qua them specifically in addition to the general consent in force, nor with regard to miscarriage of justice – No reason to interfere with the finding

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S FERTICO MARKETING AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.