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 acquits all accused in BHEL contract fraud case due to lack of mandatory sanction under Section 197 CrPC for public servant prosecution</h1> <h3>A. Srinivasulu Versus The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police</h3> A. Srinivasulu Versus The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the prosecution of A-1 was vitiated due to the absence of previous sanction under Section 197 of the Code.2. Whether the procedure for granting pardon to the approver was correctly followed.3. Whether the evidence against A-1, A-4, and A-7 was sufficient to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.Issue 1: Previous Sanction Under Section 197 of the CodeThe Supreme Court held that A-1, being a public servant, required previous sanction under Section 197(1) of the Code for prosecution. The Court noted that A-1's actions, even if alleged to be in pursuance of a conspiracy, were taken in the discharge of his official duties, making the case fall within the parameters of Section 197(1). The failure to obtain such sanction vitiated the proceedings against A-1. The Court emphasized that no public servant is appointed with a mandate to commit an offense, and the requirement of previous sanction is not redundant.Issue 2: Procedure for Granting PardonThe Court found that the procedure for granting pardon to the approver (PW-16) was correctly followed. The Court noted that the Special Court has the power to take cognizance directly and tender pardon under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court held that the object of examining an approver twice is to ensure that the accused is aware of the evidence against him and can effectively cross-examine the approver during the trial. In this case, the confession statement of the approver was enclosed to the charge sheet, and the approver was cross-examined during the trial, fulfilling the object of the procedure.Issue 3: Sufficiency of Evidence Against A-1, A-4, and A-7A-1:The Court found that the evidence of PW-16, the star witness, was not credible. PW-16's admissions during cross-examination showed that he was shifting the burden to A-1 to save himself. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish that BHEL suffered a wrongful loss or that A-5 or any other firm had a wrongful gain. The evidence showed that BHEL had not lost any money and that A-5 was owed money by BHEL. The Court concluded that the conviction of A-1 for the offenses under the IPC and the PC Act could not be sustained.A-4:The Court found that A-4 had no role in choosing the tenderers and entered the picture only after the offers were received. The competent authority had refused to grant sanction to prosecute A-4 for the offenses under the PC Act. The Court noted that the Trial Court and the High Court had wrongly convicted A-4 for the offense under Section 193 IPC without any specific allegation or finding. The Court held that the conviction of A-4 was wholly unsustainable.A-7:The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that A-7 applied for demand drafts on behalf of bogus firms. The bank officials and the handwriting expert did not implicate A-7. The High Court's comparison of signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act was not based on admitted or proved signatures. The Court concluded that the conviction of A-7 for forgery and cheating was unsustainable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the Special Court and the High Court, and acquitted the appellants of all charges. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by them were discharged.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
