TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution proved criminal conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust and corruption offences in relation to the securities transactions and alleged diversion of funds; (ii) Whether the charges of falsification of accounts, forgery, use of forged document and receiving stolen property were proved against the concerned accused; (iii) Whether the prosecution proved a valid sanction for prosecution of the public servants.
Issue (i): Whether the prosecution proved criminal conspiracy, cheating, criminal breach of trust and corruption offences in relation to the securities transactions and alleged diversion of funds.
Analysis: The evidence showed a divided banking process in which the dealers at SBI Caps finalized deals and the SBI Main Branch executed payments. The Court found that the dealers had no dominion over the funds, no role in issuing the debit vouchers or disbursing cheques, and no duty to obtain contract notes, banker's receipts or physical securities from the counter parties. The material also did not establish a meeting of minds, a prior agreement, or a complete chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the dealers and other accused to a common unlawful design. As to the allegations against the SBI officers, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the impugned funds were diverted by the accused in the manner alleged or that the essential ingredients of cheating, criminal breach of trust or criminal misconduct were established.
Conclusion: The charges under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(c), Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were not proved.
Issue (ii): Whether the charges of falsification of accounts, forgery, use of forged document and receiving stolen property were proved against the concerned accused.
Analysis: On the charge of falsification of accounts, the Court found no reliable evidence of deceitful alteration of accounts or proof of the requisite injury. On the forgery counts, the Court held that a document executed by an authorised signatory does not become a forged document merely because its recitals are said to be false, and the prosecution failed to prove the contents and operative circumstances of the disputed documents. On the allegations of receiving or concealing stolen property, the record did not show any credible proof of receipt of stolen property, diversion of funds to the relevant accused, or dishonest concealment. The prosecution evidence was found insufficient to establish the necessary mens rea or the factual foundation for these offences.
Conclusion: The charges under Section 477A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 411 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code were not proved.
Issue (iii): Whether the prosecution proved a valid sanction for prosecution of the public servants.
Analysis: The sanctioning witnesses did not demonstrate independent application of mind to the facts and materials placed before them. The Court found that the sanctions were accorded mechanically, without sufficient awareness of the factual matrix or the role of the accused, and the prosecution did not properly prove the sanction orders through competent evidence after the relevant signatory became unavailable. In the absence of proof of valid sanction under the special statute and the criminal procedure law, the prosecutions of the public servants were vitiated.
Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove valid sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Conclusion: The prosecution case failed against all the accused, and the accused were entitled to acquittal on all the substantive charges.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the accused have no dominion over the funds and the prosecution fails to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, meeting of minds, and valid sanction where required, criminal conviction for conspiracy and allied offences cannot be sustained.
TaxTMI 
