Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Several judgments refer to the doctrine of double jeopardy, asserting that once an accused is acquitted, they cannot be tried again for the same offence unless a larger bench rules otherwise (The accused was acquitted from the case by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court at Calcutta on 23.11.2011. ["SAMINATHAN AGED 60 YEARS vs MUTHUSAMAY - Madras"])
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Virendra Bhandari vs State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"]- ["Mst. Rawshon Ara Khanom vs The State and another - Supreme Court"]- ["Murarilal Agarwal @ Murari Lal Agarwal, Son of Late Nandlal Agarwal VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"]- ["VIRENDRA BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Rajasthan"]- ["M.V.Vijaya Lakshmi vs The State of Telangana - Telangana"]- ["SAMINATHAN AGED 60 YEARS vs MUTHUSAMAY - Madras"]- ["K.Ravi vs The Inspector of Police, Namakkal Police Station - Madras"]
In the realm of criminal law, particularly under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) are frequently invoked in disputes arising from business transactions, contracts, or personal dealings. A common query among litigants is: supreme court judgment on 406 420 acquitted. Individuals facing such charges often seek clarity on when courts, especially the Supreme Court, uphold acquittals. This blog post delves into the Supreme Court's consistent jurisprudence, highlighting that acquittals typically occur due to the prosecution's failure to prove essential elements like dishonest intention at the outset of the transaction. While this provides general insights, it is not legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Section 406 IPC deals with criminal breach of trust, requiring proof of entrustment of property and its subsequent dishonest misappropriation. Section 420 IPC addresses cheating, necessitating fraudulent inducement causing wrongful loss. Both offences hinge on mens rea—dishonest or fraudulent intent at the time of the transaction.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that mere breach of contract or civil disputes do not elevate matters to criminal liability. As noted, a simple breach of civil contract or failure to perform contractual obligations does not automatically amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust Radheyshyam VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 681.
The Supreme Court has consistently held that acquittal under Sections 406 and 420 IPC indicates that the prosecution has failed to establish the essential elements, particularly dishonest intention. Key points include:
In detailed analysis, courts quash proceedings when FIRs or evidence lack proof of entrustment or fraud. For instance, the High Court's quashing was upheld as the FIR and evidence did not establish the ingredients of these offences Arun Bhandari VS State of U. P. - 2013 1 Supreme 131.
Supreme Court precedents stress:- Entrustment and dishonest misappropriation for Section 406 BINOD KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2014 8 Supreme 112.- Fraudulent inducement for Section 420, with damage or harm BINOD KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2014 8 Supreme 112.
In V. P. SHRIVASTAVA VS INDIAN EXPLOSIVES LTD. - 2010 0 Supreme(SC) 910, allegations of contractual breach were deemed insufficient without proven fraud. Similarly, State Of Maharashtra VS Sayed Mohammed Masood - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1377 clarifies that a simple breach of contract would not constitute an offence unless criminal intent is evident.
Acquittals are justified when evidence fails to show initial dishonesty. In Veera Ram VS State of Rajasthan - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 331, petitioners were discharged as there was no fraudulent intent at the time of taking the goods from the complainants.
Lower court decisions align with Supreme Court views, reinforcing acquittals. In Rajesh Bhagat VS State Of West Bengal - 2023 Supreme(Cal) 81, a charge sheet under Sections 406/420 was quashed as the ingredients required to constitute the offences alleged were totally absent, with no evidence in the case diary. The court outlined essentials: for 420 IPC, fraudulent or dishonest inducement... causing damage or harm; for 406, entrustment... dishonest misappropriation.
Another case, Balachandar VS State represented by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 2157, acquitted the accused under 406/420, holding: There is no evidence to show that at very inception of transaction... there was any intention to cheat. Subsequent conduct alone isn't the test; initial intent is crucial.
In Kalpana Gupta VS State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(All) 163, the trial court acquitted under 406/120B, with the Supreme Court dismissing appeal: the burden is always on prosecution... to prove the guilt... beyond reasonable doubt. If two views are possible, the accused-favorable one prevails.
M.V.Vijaya Lakshmi vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 63984 saw acquittal under 406/420 by the magistrate, unappealed. Similarly, Madhu Sharma VS Yashpal - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 1319 involved acquittal under 406, with High Court limiting revisional interference absent exceptional circumstances.
These cases illustrate courts' reluctance to criminalize civil disputes, quashing where proof falters.
While acquittals dominate without intent proof, exceptions exist if evidence shows deception. Courts acknowledge civil disputes don't preclude criminal action if fraud is substantiated. However, civil disputes should not be criminalized Radheyshyam VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 681. In matrimonial or deposit cases like Yousuf Bin Awad VS State - 2015 Supreme(AP) 387, acquittals followed absent proper initiation or evidence.
State of Punjab VS Jaswinder Pal Singh - 2019 Supreme(P&H) 521 acquitted under 420 inter alia, upholding lack of proof. State of Gujarat VS Vinu - 2016 Supreme(Guj) 134 partly acquitted under 406/420, focusing on sentence proportionality.
Legal practitioners should cite these precedents to argue lack of ingredients, as in Arun Bhandari VS State of U. P. - 2013 1 Supreme 131 where inconsistent investigation views led to quashing.
Supreme Court jurisprudence firmly supports acquittals under Sections 406 and 420 IPC when prosecutions fail to prove dishonest intent or entrustment. In conclusion, acquittal signifies the prosecution has not established the requisite criminal intent or entrustment, and civil remedies are appropriate for disputes of a civil nature.
Key Takeaways:- Prove initial fraud for conviction; mere non-performance suffices not.- Courts quash frivolous proceedings to prevent abuse.- Always bear prosecution's burden beyond reasonable doubt.
This overview draws from established judgments Arun Bhandari VS State of U. P. - 2013 1 Supreme 131Radheyshyam VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 681BINOD KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2014 8 Supreme 112State Of Maharashtra VS Sayed Mohammed Masood - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1377Veera Ram VS State of Rajasthan - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 331, offering general guidance. For personalized advice, engage a legal expert.
#SupremeCourtIndia, #IPC406420, #LegalAcquittal
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 31.05.2022 acquitted the accused- respondents No.2 to 6 from offence under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal. (2012) 1 SCC 602 ,' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-- “A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. ... Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance and framed ....
/406/506(II) of the Penal Code. ... /406/506(II) of the Penal Code and issued summon against him. ... under section 420/406/506(II) of the Penal Code. ... Ashraf Ali Mollah, the learned Advocate appearing for the convict-petitioner submits that the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court below misread and misconstrued the judgment an order of conviction ... a copy of the judgment and order to the concerned Court below at....
To buttress his submission that neither the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code nor the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ... Learned counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. ... Learned....
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 31.05.2022 acquitted the accused- respondents No.2 to 6 from offence under Sections 420, 406, 120- B IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal. ... Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC vide judgment dated 31.05.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, South No.1, Udaipur in Case No.1226/2010 (CIS No.4444/2014). ... The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-re....
The Supreme Court in Rekha Jain vs. ... JUDGMENT Shampa Dutt (Paul), J. - This revision has been filed praying of quashing of charge sheet vide no. 289 of 2017 dated 12.04.2017 proceedings under Sections 323/406/420/447/448/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Titagarh Police Station ... The charge sheet in the present case has been filed for offences under Sections 323/406/420/447/448/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 420 IPC lays....
However, the trial Court convicted accused Chander Mohan (Respondent No. 3- herein) under Section 406 of the IPC, while all other accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 406 of the IPC as well. ... The trial Court, vide judgment dated 13.08.2007, acquitted all the accused of the charges framed against them under Sections 498-A, 323, read with Section 34 of the IPC. ... Appellant Chander Mohan (Respondent No. 3-herein), who was convicted by the trial #HL_STA....
Perusal of the judgment of the trial court would reveal that the trial court has acquitted accused Santosh Kumar Gupta for committing offence under Section 120B I.P.C. and other accused persons of the charges framed under Section 406/120B I.P.C. on following grounds. ... Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pratibha Rani Vs. ... 406 IPC while the other accused persons were acquitted of all the charges framed against them and accused Sa....
and 420 of IPC before learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad vide its judgment dated 07.10.2011, the said Court in its judgment has acquitted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. ... Though no appeal has been filed against the said judgment, the petitioner is acquitted only for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in the....
and 420 of IPC before learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad vide its judgment dated 07.10.2011, the said Court in its judgment has acquitted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. ... Though no appeal has been filed against the said judgment, the petitioner is acquitted only for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in the....
and 420 of IPC before learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad vide its judgment dated 07.10.2011, the said Court in its judgment has acquitted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. ... Though no appeal has been filed against the said judgment, the petitioner is acquitted only for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in the....
The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner/accused is ordered to be refunded to him. The bail bonds executed by him, shall stand terminated/discharged. The petitioner is acquitted from the charges under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. The conviction and sentence as against the petitioner/accused in the judgment dated 10.08.2017 in C.A.No.20 of 2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Namakkal, is set aside.
2. Vide impugned judgment, the trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused of the charges under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Against the said judgment of conviction and order of awarding sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court, Chandigarh, who vide judgment dated 30.10.2014 while dismissing the appeal upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner. The revisionist-petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period....
That on an appeal by the accused by impugned judgment and order the learned Appellate Court (learned Sessions Court) has acquitted the original accused for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. However, has confirmed the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and has partly allowed the Appeal preferred by the accused. However, while confirming the conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Appellate Court has ....
By judgment dt. 10-10-2005, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad acquitted all the accused of charge under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. He also acquitted A-2 to A-6 of the charge under Section 5 of the Act, but convicted A-1 of charge under Section 5 of the Act. He sentenced A-1 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 2 months.
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
