SC Sets Aside 1982 Bank Fraud Conviction Over Flawed 313 CrPC Examination

The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of two men in a 1982 bank fraud case, finding that the trial was vitiated due to the mechanical and inadequate manner in which their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) were recorded.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka (since retired) and Ujjal Bhuyan held that the omission to put all incriminating evidence to the accused violated not only Section 313 CrPC but also the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem; the right to be heard.

The appellants, Ramji Prasad Jaiswal @ Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal and Ashok Kumar Jaiswal, were convicted in 2006 by a CBI Special Judge in Patna for offences under Sections 420, 440, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. They were sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a fine. The conviction was upheld by the High Court in 2011.

However, the top court noted that during the trial, only four general questions were put to the appellants under Section 313 CrPC, which failed to reflect the specific incriminating evidence that had emerged during the trial.

“The manner in which the trial court had recorded the statements of the appellants under Section 313 CrPC was not at all in tune with the requirements of the said provision,” the bench observed.

The court emphasized that “as all the incriminating evidence were not put to the notice of the appellants, therefore, there was a clear breach of Section 313 CrPC as well as the principle of audi alteram partem. Certainly, this caused serious prejudice to the appellants to put forth their case. Ultimately, such evidence were relied upon by the court to convict the appellants.”

The bench concluded that this omission amounted to a serious procedural irregularity which had “completely vitiated the trial.” Even assuming that the omission did not cause a failure of justice, it remained “a material defect albeit curable.”

Citing its ruling in Raj Kumar alias Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), the Court noted that one key factor in determining whether a retrial should be ordered is the passage of time. The offence in question was committed between September and December 1982, and the trial concluded in May 2006.

“Nineteen years have gone by since then. At this distant point of time, instead of aiding the cause of justice, it will lead to miscarriage of justice if the case qua the two appellants are remanded to the trial court to restart the trial from the stage of recording the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC,” the Court observed.

Holding that such a remand was neither possible nor feasible, the bench acquitted the appellants, stating, “Consequently, appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt because of such omission in the recording of their statements under Section 313 CrPC, since the trial court had relied on the evidence adverse to the appellants while convicting them.”

The prosecution had alleged that the accused, in collusion with a bank manager, fraudulently withdrew ₹71,456 and ₹12.57 lakh from the State Bank of India by submitting fake transport receipts.

The Court also quashed the conviction of a third appellant on the ground of juvenility. It was found that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence. Ordinarily, such a case should be referred to the Juvenile Justice Board under Sections 14 and 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, but the Court declined to do so due to the lapse of over four decades.

“In the circumstances, it is neither possible nor feasible to remand the case of appellant No. 3 to the concerned Juvenile Justice Board to carry out the exercise under Sections 14 and 15 of the JJ Act. Therefore, the judgment and order of the trial court as affirmed by the High Court are hereby set aside on the ground of juvenility,” the Court held.

Case Title: Ramji Prasad Jaiswal @ Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal And Ors Vs State of Bihar