Scope Of Appeal Can Be Enlarged Even If Only Limited Notice Was Issued In SLP: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court partially allowed the Appeal upholding the former LIC Official’s conviction but altered his sentence.
The Supreme Court observed that it can enlarge the scope of appeal/petition even though it had only issued a limited notice in Special Leave Petition.
The Court upheld the conviction of a former Development Officer (Appellant) at the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) under Sections 468, 120(B), 271, 465 and 420 of the IPC as well as Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). While partially allowing the Appeal by the Appellant, the Bench altered his sentence to the period already undergone.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held, “Nonetheless, if in a given case, notice is issued which is limited on terms but the party approaching the Court is otherwise persuasive in pointing out that the case does involve a substantial question of law deserving consideration and the Bench is so satisfied, we see no reason why the case may not be heard on such or other points.”
AOR Hrishikesh Baruah represented the Appellant, while ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Trial Court convicted the Appellant upon being 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. The evidence of the insured, inter alia, to the effect that the appellant and the co-convict took the policies from him on the assurance of the same being upgraded was not dislodged even after thorough cross-examination.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court noted, “There is other evidence on record which, read together with the evidence of the insured and in the light of the appellant having filled up the blank cheques, would unmistakably lead us to the conclusion that the prosecution was successful in driving home the charges against him. Therefore, even after hearing Mr. Baruah in extenso, we do not find any good reason or ground to hold that conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under the IPC was erroneously recorded by the trial court and was affirmed by the High Court, also erroneously.”
The Court referred to its decision in Indian Bank v. Godhara Nagrik Coop. Credit Society Ltd (2008) wherein it was held, “Article 142 embodies the fundamental principle that the jurisdiction of the Court is to render complete justice and as an incident of it, the Court may pass such decrees or orders as it considers fit. When the Court initially issues a limited notice but subsequently grants leave, the scope of the appeal does not raise a matter of jurisdiction but of judicial discretion. Since it constitutes a matter of discretion and not of jurisdiction, the guiding principle has to be the advancement of substantial justice.”
Consequently, the Court held, “While maintaining the conviction, we partially allow the appeal by directing that the appellant shall not be required to serve the remainder of the prison term.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court partially allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau Of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 85)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Hrishikesh Baruah; Advocates Anurag Mishra and Utkarsh Dwivedi
Respondent: ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee; AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria; Advocates Adit Khorana, Sridhar Potaraju, Shantnu Sharma, P V Yogeswaran, Ranjana Narayan and Kartik Dey