Hiten Prasan Dalal v. Central Bureau of Investigation

November 26, 2021

Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 1999

Criminal Trial — Conviction confirmed — Sentence — Modification of — Mitigating circumstances — Bunch of cases, are in respect of different transactions — Allegations against the accused are of a similar nature — In the general conspiracy, the main accused Harshad Mehta died before the trial — Appellants, brokers and/or bank employees, are not main accused — Transactions in question pertain to the early 1990’s — Appellants were not the main accused — They have faced investigation and trial for about two and a half decades — Therefore, considering these fact, while maintaining the appellants conviction, their sentence is modified to the period already undergone — Constitution of India — Art. 134 — Economic Offences — Stock market scam — Criminal conspiracy — Role of brokers and bank employees (Paras 2 and 3)

Print 🖨 PDF 📄

(Jagdish Singh Khehar and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)

Hiten Prasan Dalal _________________ Appellant

Central Bureau of Investigation _______ Respondent

Criminal Appeal No. 369 of 1999, decided on July 23, 2015

With

Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 411 of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 412 of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 1999, Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 1999

The Order of the court was delivered by

Order

These bunch of cases, are in respect of different transactions. The allegations against the accused are, however, of a similar nature. In the general conspiracy, the main accused Harshad Mehta died before the trial, which he was facing, concluded. We are informed by learned counsel, that a few matters of the like nature, have been adjudicated upon by this Court, wherein the accused-appellants have been acquitted. In other matters, while maintaining the conviction of the accused, this Court, while examining the quantum of sentence, has held, that the same needed to be modified, to the period already undergone by them. In this behalf, learned counsel for the rival parties have invited our attention to Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2003 (3) SCC 641, and S. Mohan v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2008 (7) SCC 1.

It is also pointed out by the learned counsel, that the appellants in this case are brokers and/or bank employees. The transactions in question pertain to the early 1990’s. And as such, according to learned counsel, it would suffice, if while maintaining their conviction, their sentence is altered to the period already undergone by them.

Since it is pointed out, that the appellants herein were not the main accused, and since they have faced investigation and trial for about two and a half decades, we are satisfied, that ends of justice would be met if, while maintaining the appellants conviction, their sentence is modified to the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly. The fine, if any, imposed shall however remain payable.

The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

———

You may also like