LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rajiv Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Criminal Appeal · 2017 INSC 699Decided 2 Aug 2017
Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2017
Justice Kurian Joseph · Justice R. Banumathi

Background

Rajiv Kumar (Deputy CEO of NOIDA) and Neera Yadav (Chairperson/CEO of NOIDA) were convicted by the Special Judge, CBI, Ghaziabad for criminal conspiracy and corruption under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, over irregular allotment and conversion of a prestigious plot of land (originally reserved for a Government Guest House) in Rajiv Kumar's favour during 1994-95. The Allahabad High Court upheld both convictions and the three-year sentences. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the conviction and, alternatively, the severity of the sentence.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court examined the sequence of plot conversions and allotments and found that Rajiv Kumar had used his position, with Neera Yadav's approvals, to convert a plot reserved for public use into a larger residential plot for his own benefit, satisfying the elements of criminal conspiracy and corruption. The Court upheld the conviction of both appellants under Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, considering that the occurrence was 23 years old, that Rajiv Kumar had unconditionally surrendered the plot and forgone the refund, and that the conviction already jeopardised his service and retiral benefits, the Court reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to two years for both appellants. The appeals were thus partly allowed only as to sentence, not conviction.

Lesson Learnt

Public officials who misuse their office to secure personal benefits in land allotments can be convicted of corruption and conspiracy even years later, though courts may moderate the sentence (not the conviction) based on long delay, restitution, and collateral career consequences.

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