Archive · 9 Sep 2026
Supreme Court Acquits Man in 1993 Corruption Case
The Supreme Court reviewed a corruption case that began in 1993.
The case involved claims that fake bills were submitted for medicines that were never delivered.
The alleged loss to the government was Rs 5,97,200.
Several people were charged, and some were convicted by lower courts.
The man who appealed was convicted by the Gauhati High Court.
The Supreme Court said there was no proof that he received a financial benefit.
It also said investigators had not properly followed the money trail.
The court therefore cancelled his conviction and ordered his release if he was not needed in another case.
The Supreme Court acquitted a man in a corruption case registered in 1993 and later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
The case involved alleged losses of Rs 5,97,200 from false RCC bills for medicines that were never supplied.
The court said conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of a pecuniary advantage.
The bench criticized the use of unnecessary and irrelevant voluminous evidence, which contributes to delays in corruption trials.
The court also noted that investigators had not traced how money was disbursed from the department.
- Who
- A man convicted in the case; the Supreme Court bench comprised Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran.
- What
- The Supreme Court allowed the man's appeal and acquitted him of corruption and criminal-conspiracy charges.
- When
- The verdict was delivered on Tuesday; the case was originally lodged in 1993.
- Where
- The verdict was delivered by the Supreme Court in New Delhi, in a case concerning Assam's veterinary department.
- Why
- The court found no established pecuniary advantage, and noted that the investigation had not traced the money trail.
Appellant's Position
Prosecution Case
Basis for conviction
Appellant's Position
The appellant challenged the Gauhati High Court's May 2018 conviction, and the Supreme Court found no reason to uphold it because no pecuniary advantage was established.
Prosecution Case
The case alleged that false bills for undelivered medicines caused a government loss, with payments made to a fictitious firm.
Evidence and investigation
Appellant's Position
The defense benefited from the court's finding that much of the evidence was unnecessary or irrelevant and that investigators had not traced the money trail.
Prosecution Case
The prosecution case involved allegations of corruption and criminal conspiracy arising from transactions in Assam's veterinary department, though the court said the investigation did not establish the money trail.
- Original case year
- 1993
- Alleged loss
- Rs 5,97,200
- Allegation
- False RCC bills were submitted for medicines that were never supplied, with payments made to a fictitious firm.
- Charges cited
- Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
- People chargesheeted
- Seven people
- Trial-court outcome
- Four people were convicted and sentenced, while three were acquitted.
- Supreme Court finding
- A conviction under Section 13(1)(d) requires a pecuniary advantage.