Latest news with #TrialCourt
India Today
3 days ago
- Business
- India Today
Court pauses trial against Mehul Choksi in Rs 55-crore Canara Bank fraud case
A special CBI court in Mumbai on Friday stayed the issuance of process and the non-bailable warrant (NBW) against absconding diamantaire Mehul Choksi in connection with a Rs 55 crore loan fraud involving Canara case, registered by the CBI's Bank Securities and Fraud Branch (BSFB) on July 12, 2022, was based on a complaint filed by P Santosh, Chief General Manager, Canara Bank. It alleged fraud committed by Choksi, his companies, associates, and some unidentified public servants in the disbursal of working capital facilities sanctioned to Bezel Jewellery (India) Pvt Ltd under a consortium led by Canara Bank and Bank of this year, in April, a magistrate court issued a fresh NBW against Choksi. The businessman, currently imprisoned in Belgium, challenged the order through advocates Vijay Agarwal, Rahul Agarwal, and Jasmin Purani. His co-accused, Aniyath Shivraman Nair, then Assistant General Manager at Gitanjali Jewels, also filed a criminal revision Agarwal, representing both accused, argued that 'a cryptic order of issuance of process has been passed' by the magistrate court. He said the court had issued the process mechanically, without applying its mind and in violation of Sections 190 and 204 of the CrPC. Agarwal added, 'The order is a non-speaking and unreasoned order, hence, it may kindly be stayed.'CBI's Public Prosecutor Vikram Singh opposed the request for interim Special Judge JP Darekar, after reviewing the records and the magistrate's order, noted that the lower court failed to issue a reasoned order. 'Though the Trial Court has observed that there is sufficient material available on record for issuing process against accused persons, but order does not contain detailed reasons,' the judge a Supreme Court precedent, Judge Darekar said, 'Prima facie the impugned order does not reflect that any opinion was formed by the Trial Court on the basis of the material content in the charge-sheet.'The court further stressed the importance of reasoned orders. 'The reasons are necessary not only for the litigants before the court but also for the superior courts to know the thought process of the Trial Court. The court expects at least some brief outline of the reasons which led the Trial Court to form an opinion to issue summons in the case.'In view of these observations, the court stayed further proceedings in the trial court against Choksi and Nair until the next CBI court directed that its order be communicated to the magistrate court and granted the agency time till August 8 to file a reply.- EndsMust Watch
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
Special court stays proceedings in 2022 bank fraud case filed against Choksi
A SPECIAL court Friday stayed proceedings against diamond merchant Mehul Choksi and a co-accused in a bank fraud case, pending before the magistrate court. The special court said that the magistrate court had in April issued summons to the seven accused in the case, including Choksi, but the order does not reflect any opinion of the court. Lawyers for Choksi and co-accused, Aniyath Nair, had approached the special court against the magistrate court order. 'The reasons are necessary not only for the litigants before the court but also for the superior courts to know the thought process of the learned trial court. The court expects at least some brief outline of the reasons which leads the Trial Court to form an opinion to issue summons in the case. Therefore, in view of this prima facie error of being no reasons in support of the order of issuance of process, the further proceedings…. pending before the court….are hereby stayed qua the present applicant Nos.5 (Nair) and 2 (Choksi) till next date,' the special court said. The case relates to a complaint filed in 2022, alleging wrongful losses caused to a consortium of banks led by Canara Bank to the tune of Rs 55.27 crore. Choksi, two companies— Bezel Jewellery India Ltd, Gitanjali Gems, and four other persons were named as accused by the CBI. The CBI had alleged that loans granted by the banks for manufacturing and sales of gold and diamond studded jewellery, were diverted by the accused. The magistrate court had passed an order summoning the accused and issued a non-bailable warrant against Choksi, who is currently facing proceedings in Belgium, where he is detained on an extradition request by Indian authorities, for investigation of the Rs 13,000-crore Punjab National Bank bank consortium fraud case. The lawyers for the accused, Rahul Agarwal and Jasmin Purani, had submitted that the magistrate court order taking cognizance of the chargesheet filed by the CBI was done 'mechanically', without giving any reasons. They also claimed that the order was passed in a 'lightning speed' on the same day when the chargesheet, running into thousands of pages, was put before the court, without perusal.
News18
3 days ago
- News18
Denial Of Inheritance To Natural Heir In Will Requires Closer Scrutiny: SC
The SC said, unlike other documents, when a will is propounded, its maker is no longer in the land of the living, which casts a solemn duty on the court The Supreme Court said on Thursday that only when the propounder dispels the suspicious circumstances and satisfies the conscience of the court that the testator had duly executed the will out of his free volition without coercion or undue influence, would the will be accepted as a genuine one. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi said, unlike other documents, when a will is propounded, its maker is no longer in the land of the living, which casts a solemn duty on the court to ascertain whether the will propounded had been duly proved. 'Onus lies on the propounder not only to prove due execution but dispel from the mind of the court, all suspicious circumstances which cast doubt on the free disposing mind of the testator," the bench said. The court pointed out a will has to be proved like any other document subject to the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that is examination of at least one of the attesting witnesses. The court dismissed an appeal filed by Gurdial Singh through his legal representatives and affirmed the findings of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court had set aside the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and declared Jagir Kaur, wife of Maya Singh, as the owner and in possession of the suit land. The appellant was nephew of Maya Singh, who died in 1991. He claimed Maya Singh executed a will in 1991 bequeathing land, measuring 67 karnals and 4 marlas to him. The Trial Court decreed the suit and held him as the lawful owner of the land, finding the will as genuine. The First Appellate Court at Amritsar upheld the judgment and the decree passed in the appellant's suit. The High Court, however, reversed the concurrent findings, holding that the suspicious circumstance namely, non-mention of first respondent, who was the wife of the testator Maya Singh and the reasons for her disinheritance in the will exposed absence of 'free disposing mind' of the testator. Examining the appeal, the court held, a cumulative assessment of the attending circumstances including this unusual omission to mention the very existence of his wife in the will, gave rise to serious doubt that the will was executed as per the dictates of the appellant and is not the 'free will' of the testator. The bench said deprivation of a natural heir, by itself, may not amount to a suspicious circumstance because the whole idea behind execution of the will is to interfere with the normal line of succession. However, the court emphasised, the prudence requires reason for denying the benefit of inheritance to natural heirs and an absence of it, though not invalidating the will in all cases, shrouds the disposition with suspicion as it does not give inkling to the mind of the testator to enable the court to judge that the disposition was a voluntary act. The bench pointed out in Ram Piari Vs Bhagwant & Ors (1993) this court held when suspicious circumstance exists, courts should not be swayed by due execution of the will alone. When unusual features appear in a will or unnatural circumstances surround its execution, the court must undertake a close scrutiny and make an overall assessment of the unusual circumstances before accepting the will, the bench added. In the case, the bench said, 'We have no hesitation to hold that non-mention of first respondent or the reasons for her disinheritance in the will, is an eloquent reminder that the free disposition of the testator was vitiated by the undue influence of the appellant." Court noted Jagir Kaur unequivocally stated that she was living with her husband till his death and the specious rationale given that she may have been disinherited as Maya Singh's monies had been settled in her favour and she was entitled to pension is hardly convincing. It pointed out, no evidence was led to show whether the quantum of money said to be settled in favour of 1st respondent was reasonable and would satisfy the conscience of a man of ordinary prudence with regard to her complete expungement in the will. The bench further found the appellant's case was not only to propound the will in his favour but even to deny the very status of first respondent as Maya Singh's wife. 'When one reads the contents of the will, appellant's stand is stark and palpable in its tenor and purport. The will is a cryptic one where Maya Singh bequests his properties to his nephew i.e. the appellant, as the latter was taking care of him. However, the will is completely silent with regard to the existence of his own wife and natural heir, i.e. the first respondent, or the reason for her disinheritance," the bench said. Court further noted the evidence on record showed first respondent was residing with Maya Singh till the latter's death. Nothing had come on record to show the relation between the couple was bitter. As per the appellant, she was nominated by Maya Singh and was entitled to receive his pension which demonstrates the testator's conduct in accepting first respondent as his lawfully wedded wife. Court said, non-mention of the status of wife or the reason for her disinheritance in the will ought not to be examined in isolation but in the light of all attending circumstances of the case. Further, it held, the Trial Court erroneously observed that non-performance of last rites of Maya Singh by first respondent hinted at sour relations between the couple. 'Ordinarily, in a Hindu/Sikh family, last rites are performed by male sapinda relations. Given this practice, first respondent not performing last rites could not be treated as a contra indicator of indifferent relationship with her husband during the latter's lifetime. In this backdrop, it cannot be said Maya Singh had during his lifetime, denied his marriage with first respondent or admitted that their relation was strained, so as to prompt him to erase her very existence in the will. Such erasure of marital status is the tell-tale insignia of the propounder and not the testator himself," the bench said. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : supreme court view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 18, 2025, 19:34 IST News india Denial Of Inheritance To Natural Heir In Will Requires Closer Scrutiny: SC Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
News18
08-07-2025
- News18
‘Clear Pattern of Guilt': Supreme Court Confirms Conviction In 2006 Murder
Last Updated: The bench ruled that even without eyewitness testimony, the cumulative effect of the evidence was sufficient for conviction The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld conviction of a man for killing his friend in 2006 in a case based on circumstantial evidence, after finding that a clear pattern from the circumstances, proved with inferential and logical links, unmistakably pointed to his guilt. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh held that no material illegality has been committed by the Trial Court and the Karnataka High Court in appreciating the evidence against appellant Chetan, nor can it be said that any gross injustice has been caused to him by the impugned judgment by misreading or ignoring any material evidence. According to the prosecution, the appellant and deceased Vikram Sinde were friends. The deceased borrowed Rs 4,000 from the appellant and refused to return the money. On July 10, 2006, the appellant took the deceased on his bike with double-barrel gun on the pretext of hunting and killed him in the field of the complainant. Three days later, the body of the deceased was found and the appellant was arrested on July 22, 2006. He also produced the gold chain of the deceased. The appellant contended before the apex court that he and the deceased being last seen together cannot be said to have been established with cogent evidence and the recovery of the phone belonging to the deceased was also not proved. No one had seen the appellant shooting the deceased as alleged by the prosecution, nor were they seen together in the field where the dead body of the deceased was found. The gun was also not seized from the deceased but produced before the police by the appellant's grandfather. His counsel also contended since the motive had not been established, the prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence cannot stand. Among other circumstances, the bench said the appellant remained hidden from July 11, 2006 till July 22, 2006. He was arrested on July 22, 2006, after extensive search at numerous locations after the identification of the dead body. He had misled his friends, his family members and that of the deceased. Personal effects of the deceased, like a gold chain, were recovered from the appellant. The court also pointed out given the subsequent recovery of the gun and spent cartridges and forensic and ballistic evidence of a link between the pellets recovered from the body of the deceased and the gun recovered, the time lapse, which could have thrown doubt on the last-seen theory, pales into insignificance; rather, it is rendered inconsequential. The bench also noted the double-barrel gun, one live and two spent cartridges, and a handbag were recovered at the instance of the appellant from the house of the grandfather of the appellant where he lived. The appellant tried to make out a case that nobody had seen the appellant carrying the gun; the bench, however, opined that the said contention was devoid of merit in view of the evidence of the forensic expert who examined the gun and clearly stated that the gun can be dismantled. 'Merely because there is no evidence of any witness seeing the gun being carried by the appellant, it cannot be fatal to the prosecution case," the bench said. The court pointed out that where the evidence is circumstantial in nature, the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. In other words, each of the circumstances from which certain inferences are sought to be drawn is required to be proved in accordance with law, and there cannot be any element of surmise and conjecture; and each of these circumstances so proved must form a complete chain without any break to clearly point to the guilt of the accused person. The court has to examine the cumulative effect of the existence of these circumstances which would point to the guilt of the accused, though any single circumstance may not in itself be sufficient to prove the offence, the bench said. Thus, if the combined effect of all these circumstances, each of which has been independently proved, establishes the guilt of the accused, then the conviction based on such circumstances can be sustained. These circumstances so proved must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved. If upon evaluation of a set of proved circumstances consistent with understandable and socially recognised human behaviour, as a cumulative consequence, a clear and definitive pattern emerges which irresistibly points to the culpability of the accused person, we see no reason why we should not accept such an inferred conclusion to be correct to fasten criminal liability on the accused, the bench said. On the other hand, if such an inference is sought to be assailed on the ground of any doubt, the doubt must be a reasonable one consistent with human behaviour under the circumstances of the case and not fanciful, abstract speculation or imagination, the bench said. In case, the court also pointed out there was evidence that the appellant had remained in abscondence. It, however, said mere absconding by itself does not constitute a guilty mind as even an innocent man may feel panicky and may seek to evade the police when wrongly suspected of being involvement as an instinct of self-preservation. 'But the act of abscondence is certainly a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence and is a conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which points to his guilty mind. The needle of suspicion gets strengthened by the act," the bench said. Coming to the motive, the court said, it is something that is very difficult to prove as it remains hidden in the deep recess of the mind of the person concerned and in the absence of any open declaration by the person concerned himself, the motive has to be inferred from the activities and conduct of the person. 'While proof of motive certainly strengthens the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, failure to prove the same cannot be fatal," the bench said. Even if it is held that there was no such monetary transaction between the appellant and the deceased, the same may not materially affect the Prosecution case, the court held. With regard to the law of evidence, the bench said, that law does not require that a fact requires to be proved on absolute terms bereft of all doubts. 'What law contemplates is that for a fact to be considered proven, it must eliminate any reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt does not mean any trivial, fanciful or imaginary doubt, but doubt based on reason and common sense growing out of the evidence in the case. A fact is considered proved if the court, after reviewing the evidence, either believes it exists or deems its existence probable enough that a prudent person would act on the assumption that it exists, the bench said. The court also said it should not also lose sight of the significance of the provision of Section 313 of the CrPC in the case. 'Examination of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is an important component of the process of judicial scrutiny of the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against an accused," the bench said. The court pointed out, this is to enable the accused to prepare and strategize his defence. He will have all the opportunities to discredit any prosecution witness or question any evidence through the tool of cross examination. He will thereafter have the opportunity to lead his defence evidence if any. It is in this context that the answers given by an accused assume great significance in assessing the evidence by the court. 'While the accused is not obligated to answer the questions put to him and still can maintain his silence or deny the evidence, yet silence or evasive or wrong answers to the questions put by the court provides a perspective to the court in properly evaluating the incriminating materials which have been brought forth by the prosecution by drawing necessary inference including an adverse one," the bench said. top videos View all Dismissing the appeal, the bench said, in the present case, despite the incriminating evidence which has come up against the appellant and has been pointed out to him by the court, he has not explained any of these but merely denied or feigned ignorance to which necessary inference can be drawn against him. 'We are, therefore, satisfied that the conviction of the appellant by the Trial Court which the High Court upheld does not warrant any interference from this court," the bench said. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 08, 2025, 17:11 IST News india 'Clear Pattern of Guilt': Supreme Court Confirms Conviction In 2006 Murder
India Gazette
26-06-2025
- India Gazette
Delhi HC grants interim bail to Jitender Gogi's co-accused on grounds of wife's surgery
New Delhi [India], June 27 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has granted 15 days interim bail to Prince alias Sandeep, who is a co-accused with Jitender Gogi and others in a murder case of Kunal Mann of rival Tillu Tajpuria's gang. Kunal Mann was shot dead on February 10, 2021, allegedly by Deepak alias Boxer, Mohit and Chhota Boxer, for the revenge of the murder of Kulbeer alias Mathur. An FIR was registered at Police Station Ali Pur. Prince was arrested on February 12, 2021. He was charged with Jitender alias Gogi, who was lodged in jail at the time. Gogi was shot dead by the Tillu gang in Rohini court in September 2021. Subsequently, Tillu Tajpuria was murdered in Tihar Jail in May 2023 by the Gogi gang. Justice Manoj Jain granted 15 days' interim bail to Prince alias Sandeep alias Mota on the grounds of the surgery of his wife. 'The application is allowed and interim bail is granted to the petitioner/applicant for 15 days to be reckoned from the date of his release on his furnishing personal bond and surety bond for Rs 50,000 each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/ learned Duty MM,' Justice Manoj Jain ordered on June 25. The accused had moved an application seeking an interim bail of 45 days. Advocate CM Sangwan appeared for the accused and submitted that his wife has to undergo spinal surgery and there is no one else in the family to take care of her. On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) opposed the bail plea by submitting that the petitioner is a co-accused of Deepak alias Boxer in a murder case. While granting interim bail, the High Court observed, 'As per status report, there is no other male member in the family and besides the petitioner and his wife, he has two minor children and one aged grandmother.' 'Undoubtedly, the allegations against the accused are serious in nature, but keeping in mind the fact that there is no other male member in the family and the wife of the petitioner has to undergo spinal surgery, the case for interim bail is made out,' the bench said in the order. (ANI)
