LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Malkeet Singh Gill vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

Criminal Appeal · 2022 INSC 656Decided 5 Jul 2022
Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 2022
Indira Banerjee · J.K. Maheshwari

Background

The appellant was the Area Manager of a company that collected public deposits promising 8-10% annual interest, like a bank, through agents; when depositors sought their maturity amounts with interest, the company refused to pay and later shut down. A depositor's complaint led to charges under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of the IPC, among others, and the trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to consecutive terms of imprisonment. The Sessions Court (in appeal) upheld the conviction, and the Chhattisgarh High Court, in a criminal revision, also upheld the conviction but modified the sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively.

Decision Breakdown

The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that convictions under Sections 409 and 420 IPC could not both stand as they are conceptually inconsistent, that he was merely an employee and a scapegoat, and that the prosecution had not proved dishonest intention or actual misappropriation. The Supreme Court held that where two courts below have given concurrent findings of fact after full appreciation of evidence, a High Court exercising its narrow revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC, and the Supreme Court itself as a "fourth court", should not re-appreciate evidence or interfere unless the findings are perverse, citing Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam. It found the concurrent findings that the appellant, as Area Manager, directed the depositor-facing agents and breached the trust reposed by depositors were not perverse, and that the courts' discretion under Section 31 CrPC to run sentences concurrently rather than consecutively was a valid, permissible exercise (per O.M. Cherian v. State of Kerala). The appeal was dismissed and the conviction and concurrent sentences upheld.

Lesson Learnt

Once trial and appellate courts have both concurrently found the same facts against an accused based on evidence, higher courts (including the Supreme Court itself) will ordinarily not re-weigh that evidence again: a technical argument that two offences are "conceptually inconsistent" will not undo a conviction if each offence's separate ingredients were independently established on the facts.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case