Yawning Gaps In Investigation: Telangana High Court Slams Probe In Pre-Matric Scholarship Scam, Acquits Four
Case: Ganesh Rathod vs The State of A.P
Coram: Justice K. Surender
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.667 OF 2007
Court Observation: “A reading of the evidence of witnesses and findings of the learned Special Judge, the basics of admissibility of evidence in criminal trial have been utterly disregarded and on the basis of inadmissible evidence, conclusions were drawn in the judgment.”
“With the said amount, A1 and A2 purchased several properties and were also shared among the other accused. During cross-examination, PW1 (Inspector) admits that he has not made any specific enquiry nor mentioned names of the officials whom he met and on what date. No documents were obtained from any of the office nor can give names of the officials whom he met in Pay and Accounts Office and District Tribal Welfare Office (DTWO).”
“Under Section 114-G of Indian Evidence Act, it may be presumed that evidence that could be produced and is not produced, if produced would be unfavorable to the person who withholds it. The Court may presume the existence of such fact. In the absence of any evidence apart from the inadmissible and uncorroborated contents of Exs.P2 and P179, it creates any amount of doubt on the prosecution case about the claim of the eight schools being non-existent.”
“The said document goes contrary to the case of the prosecution that eight schools are bogus schools. In Ex.P179, it was informed regarding existence of five schools out of the alleged eight bogus schools.”
“All the said cheques and bills were collected during the course of investigation. However, none of the cheques were sent to expert to ascertain whether A1 and A2 had either claimed the cheques or presented them or withdrew the amount from the bank account.”
“The Investigating Officer has failed to collect the Audit Treasury Manual, Budget Control Register, Form 44 Register, which would reflect the passing of bills.”
“There cannot be any moral conviction of accused. Unless the burden is discharged by the prosecution proving the case beyond reasonable doubt, no conviction can be recorded… The prosecution has left yawning gaps in investigation and failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing admissible evidence.”
Previous Posts
