Back
ROBIN PHUKAN
Md. Khalilur Rahman, S/o. Late Motiur Rahman Hazarika – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam (CBI) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M. Haloi, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI.
2. In this appeal, under Section 374[2] of the Cr.P.C., the appellant namely, Khalilur Rahman has put to challenge the correctness or otherwise of the judgment and order dated 21.10.2009, passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Assam in the Special Case No. 07/2005.
3. It is to be noted here that vide judgment and order dated 21.10.2009, the learned court below has convicted the appellant under Sections 419/420 of the IPC, read with Sections 13[1][d]/13[2] of the PC Act. It is also to be noted here that vide aforementioned judgment and order, the learned court below has sentenced the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation under Section 419 of the IPC and further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation under Section 420 of the IPC and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation under Section 13[1][d]/13[2] of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
4. The background facts, leading to
The court emphasized that opinion evidence must be supported by substantial corroborating evidence in criminal trials to uphold a conviction, reaffirming the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyon....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court must ....
Conviction for forgery and misappropriation requires clear proof of entrustment and intent to defraud, which was lacking, leading to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of forgery and conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt due to irregularities in evidence collection.
Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt, leave the....
Accusation under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires credible evidence of misconduct, and procedures for collecting evidence must be strictly adhered to, particularly with regards to handwritin....
Prior sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act or Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required for prosecuting a Manager of a Nationalised Bank for offences committed while....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
