The Supreme Court held that it is not bound to limit its scope while hearing an appeal. It may expand the merits of the case if required, under its power to do “complete justice” under Article 142.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Biswajit Das, a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India, against an order of the Gauhati High Court. In 2009, the High Court had convicted Das of forgery, fraud and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and criminal conduct and abuse of position under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (CPA). He had been instrumental in obtaining a life insurance claim by falsely projecting the insured person’s death. In 2014, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had issued notice to the parties, but had confined the case to the question of whether Das could be convicted of criminal conduct and abuse of power under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Court held that Article 142 gives it the power to expand the scope of its scrutiny beyond the limited scope set when issuing notice. The Bench held that they were convinced by the appellant’s arguments that there exists a substantial question of law that requires the court’s consideration. “Justice could be a real casualty” if the Court is required to strictly remain within that scope. They clarified that the power under Article 142 may be exercised at the discretion of the judges, if “satisfaction is reached” that the case demands it to do complete justice. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Trial Court and the Gauhati High Court for offences under both the IPC and the PCA.
Biswajit Das v Central Bureau of Investigation
16 January 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 85 | 2025 SCO.LR 1(3)[11]
Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan
Read the Judgement here.
Case Comment:
Held: The appellant was a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India and was found guilty of being instrumental, together with a co-convict in obtaining settlement of two insurance claims by projecting the insured as dead although he was, in fact, alive – In evidence it was brought out that the appellant who was friends with insured along with the co-convict took the policies from insured on the assurance that the same will be upgraded and also the appellant could not satisfactorily explain why he filled up the six blank cheques (Exhibits 4-9) for different amounts totaling to Rs. 1,67,583, i.e., the amount for satisfaction of the insurance claim – The concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court holding the appellant guilty under the aforementioned sections is upheld – The decision in State of Gujarat v. Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi (1972) 2 SCC 392 has no application herein and was distinguished – The order of limited notice dated January 3, 2014 had also called upon the respondents to show cause on the question of sentence imposed upon the appellant, meaning thereby that prima facie a case for alteration/modification of the sentence had been set up – Since the date of the incident relates back to 2004 and the appellant has spent a little less than 2/3rd of the prison term of 36 (thirty-six) months in custody, in interest of justice the term of imprisonment is modified to the period of sentence already undergone. [Paras 18-21, 25]
Key words/phrase: Fraud—forgery—criminal conduct—abuse of power—public servant—court asked to hear case within limited scope—held scope of appeal may be expanded—Article 142—interest of complete justice
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/
#legalcousel #legalawareness #legaladvice #Article142 #IPC #PreventionofcorruptionAct #Fraud #forgery #criminalconduct #abuseofpower #publicservant