In a recent legal development, the High Court has made a significant decision in the case involving Dilip Mulani. The court has overturned the trial court’s ruling, emphasizing the requirement for a complete trial to ascertain the accused’s role in the alleged conspiracy. This ruling marks a crucial turning point in the ongoing legal proceedings. #LegalUpdate #HighCourt #DilipMulani
Facts
- High Court of Gujarat set aside the decision of the Trial Court rejecting the discharge application of Dilip Mulani.
- Dilip Mulani is accused of committing offenses under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- The involvement of the present applicant accused in the payment of illegal gratification to Shri Anand Singh Mall has been established.
- Evidence includes entries in expenditure note books, telephonic conversations, and receipts of payment.
- Shri Dilip Mulani is implicated in the conspiracy along with Shri Mehul Zaveri and Shri Dushyant Mulani.
- Transfers of large sums of money are documented and linked to the bribery scheme.
- The role of the accused in facilitating the illegal payments to Shri Anand Singh Mall is evident.
- Witnesses have identified voices of key individuals involved in the scheme.
- The charge of criminal conspiracy requires a meeting of minds to commit illegal acts, secrecy was maintained in this case.
- A full-fledged trial is deemed necessary to prove the guilt of the present applicant accused.
Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings
Analysis
- The judge thoroughly reviewed the telephonic conversation records, witness statements, and documents to identify the place of agreement not disclosed in the charge-sheet.
- The judge examined the elements of Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to abetment of illegal gratification and bribery.
- Both the prosecution and defense arguments were considered regarding the presence of sufficient evidence showcasing criminal conspiracy by the accused.
- While the FIR initially did not name the accused, it’s established that lack of initial mention does not invalidate the prosecution’s case.
- Prosecution is obligated to provide substantial evidence of the accused’s involvement, which appeared lacking in the present case based on witness statements and documents.
- The court refrained from delving into the merits of the discharge application’s arguments and reversed the High Court’s judgment as being perceived as unreliable.
- The High Court had set aside the Trial Court’s order and allowed the discharge application, noting that a full trial was necessary to determine the accused’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
- High Court found no evidence against the respondent.
- Trial Court had relevant evidence pointing towards involvement of the respondent.
- High Court did not analyze the factual aspects considered by the Trial Court.
- High Court’s approach deemed unacceptable and failing judicial scrutiny.
- High Court allowed the discharge application without proper factual analysis.
Also Read: Contrary Directions in Issuance of Letter of Intent
Decision
- Parties are relegated before the High Court for reconsideration of the Criminal Revision Application.
- No opinion expressed on the merits of the discharge application.
- High Court to deal with all aspects as per law and decide the Revision Application expeditiously.
- High Court reminded of the provisions of Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act for expeditious trial completion.
- The impugned judgment and order set aside, and the revision application remanded to the High Court.
Also Read: Application for Stay in Civil Suit Rejected: Court’s Legal Analysis
Case Title: CBI GUJARAT Vs. DILIP MULANI
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001252-001252 / 2019
