Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2000 (1) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2000 (1) TMI 981 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues involved: Challenge to orders quashing charges framed under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1948 and IPC, regarding alleged conspiracy in purchase of medicines for S.G. Cancer Hospital, Indore.

Judgment Summary:

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed appeals against the High Court's orders quashing charges framed by the Additional Sessions Judge in a corruption case. The accused were alleged to have conspired with local businessmen, causing wrongful loss to the government in the purchase of medicines for the hospital. The High Court quashed the charges, leading to the State's appeal.

The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach erroneous, emphasizing that at the stage of framing charges, the court must assess if a prima facie case exists, not delve into the sufficiency of evidence for conviction. Referring to legal precedents, the Court clarified that the inquiry should focus on whether the facts emerging from the materials constitute the alleged offence. The High Court's detailed evaluation of the evidence was deemed unjustified.

Regarding specific accused individuals, the High Court's observations on their roles in the alleged conspiracy were criticized. The Court highlighted that the distance between purchase locations could justify price variations, and the prosecution should establish the overpricing during trial, not at the charge-framing stage. The failure to involve all members of the Purchase Committee did not warrant quashing the charges, as additional members could be added later under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Court also noted the High Court's acceptance of statements without cross-examination and its oversight of allegations regarding bogus vouchers. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and allowed the appeals, reinstating the charges against the accused individuals.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates