TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Concrete Evidence Required to Link Accused with Offense</h1> <h3>SURENDRA NATH PANDEY AND ANR PETITIONER (S) Versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR</h3> SURENDRA NATH PANDEY AND ANR PETITIONER (S) Versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR - tmi Issues:Refusal to quash criminal proceedings based on FIR allegations against panel advocates of a Bank under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.Analysis:The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the High Court's order refusing to quash criminal proceedings in a case involving panel advocates of a Bank accused under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court's decision was based on the FIR alleging that the appellants provided false reports to cheat the Bank and facilitate loans. However, the charge-sheet did not contain specific findings of the investigation. The Court noted that the allegations were general and did not specify the appellants' role in any conspiracy. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court emphasized that criminal prosecution should not proceed based on vague allegations against panel advocates, as it would be an abuse of the court process and likely futile.The Court cited a case to highlight that a lawyer's liability arises only if actively participating in defrauding the Bank. The judgment emphasized the lawyer's loyalty to the client's interest and stated that mere disagreement with the lawyer's opinion does not warrant criminal prosecution without tangible evidence linking them to the conspiracy. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in not stopping the proceedings against the appellants. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and quashed the proceedings against two appellants in the case, highlighting the lack of concrete evidence linking them to the alleged conspiracy.In summary, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of tangible evidence in criminal proceedings and the need to establish a clear link between the accused and the alleged conspiracy. The Court's decision focused on preventing the abuse of the legal process and ensuring that prosecutions are based on substantial evidence rather than vague allegations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
