LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

M/S Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

Criminal Appeal · 2020 INSC 645Decided 17 Nov 2020
Criminal Appeal Nos. 760-764 of 2020
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar · Justice B.R. Gavai

Background

Coal purchased by Fertico Marketing under a subsidized Fuel Supply Agreement with Coal India was allegedly resold in the black market with the connivance of two government officials, causing a loss of over ₹36 crore to the public exchequer. The CBI registered an FIR and later filed a chargesheet against the company's director and the two officials. The accused sought to have the prosecution quashed, primarily arguing that the CBI's investigation was invalid because it lacked the Uttar Pradesh government's prior consent required under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act for probing offences involving state government officials.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Uttar Pradesh's 1989 notification had already given CBI a general, standing consent to investigate Prevention of Corruption Act offences anywhere in the state, with only a rider requiring extra permission when a state-government public servant was involved, and that rider did not apply to the private individuals/company challenging the case, so their appeals had no merit. As for the two public servants, the state government had granted post-facto consent before the chargesheet was filed, and no prejudice or miscarriage of justice from any delay was shown, so the investigation against them also stood. However, the Court noticed that the High Court's Single Judge, while answering a preliminary legal question about CBI's jurisdiction, had never gone on to decide three other specific questions the parties had raised (about whether the dispute was really civil in nature, about selective prosecution, and about whether a conspiracy charge could stand without an official party). The Court therefore finally disposed of all the appeals by rejecting the consent-related challenge outright, while sending those three unaddressed questions back to the High Court's Single Judge to be decided on their own merits, with all those specific arguments kept open for the parties.

Lesson Learnt

When a state has given CBI blanket advance permission to investigate corruption cases within its territory, that consent generally holds even years later and even for private individuals caught up in the same case; only investigations specifically targeting state-government officials need an extra, case-specific nod. Separately, courts must actually answer every legal question a party has properly raised, leaving some unaddressed can itself be a ground for correction on appeal.

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