SC Quashes Conviction in SBI Fraud Case Due to Section 313 CrPC Lapse; Recognizes Juvenility of Co-Accused: Ramji Prasad Jaiswal & Ors. v. State of Bihar

 

🔍 Ramji Prasad Jaiswal & Ors. v. State of Bihar | Criminal Appeal No. 490 of 2025 | Date: 20 May 2025

📌 Link to Judgment: Supreme Court of India

---

🔑 Key Highlights

• Bench: Justices Abhay S. Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan

• Issue: SBI fraud through fake transport receipts and criminal conspiracy

• Charges: IPC Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B, and Section 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947

• Conviction Set Aside: Due to failure to properly examine accused under Section 313 CrPC

• Accused No. 3 declared Juvenile under JJ Act, 2000

• Criminal Appeal Allowed: Conviction and sentence set aside after 40+ years

---

🧵 Brief Background

In 1982, a massive banking fraud surfaced at SBI Agriculture Market Yard Branch, Mohania, Bihar. Accused persons, including the bank manager and businessmen, allegedly submitted fake transport receipts to secure fraudulent payments. The primary transporter firm, M/s Rohtas Carriers, was falsely shown to have carried grain consignments.

The trial concluded in 2006 with convictions, later upheld by the Patna High Court in 2011. The matter reached the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition in 2012.

---

⚖️ Legal Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the accused were prejudiced due to non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC?

2. Whether one of the appellants was a juvenile on the date of the offence (1982)?

---

🧑‍⚖️ Findings of the Supreme Court

✅ 1. Juvenility Recognized for Accused No. 3 (Bal Mukund Jaiswal)

• Date of Birth: 24.12.1965 (as per matric certificate)

• Age at the time of offence: 16 years and 11 months

• Inquiry under Section 7A of JJ Act confirmed juvenility

• Court held that sending the matter to Juvenile Justice Board after 40 years would be futile

• Conviction & sentence against him were quashed

---

❌ 2. Violation of Section 313 CrPC for Accused No. 1 & 2

• The trial court asked only 4 general questions to the accused

• Specific incriminating evidence was not put to the accused

• Cited precedents:

  • Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra

  • Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

  • Ashok v. State of U.P. (2025)

• Held: Grave procedural lapse violating the principle of audi alteram partem (right to be heard)

• Such failure seriously prejudiced the accused and vitiated the trial

• Re-trial not feasible after over 40 years

---

📜 Law Laid Down

• Section 313 CrPC: Accused must be questioned specifically on every incriminating circumstance; failure to do so causes prejudice and can invalidate the trial.

• Section 7A, JJ Act, 2000: A claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage—even after conviction; if proven, the sentence has no effect.

• Old offences + serious procedural lapses + long delay = conviction liable to be set aside in interest of justice

---

🧾 Final Verdict

• Convictions of all three appellants quashed

• Appellants discharged from all charges

• Bail bonds cancelled

• Criminal Appeal allowed in full

---

📚 Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment reaffirms the critical importance of compliance with Section 313 CrPC and the continued relevance of juvenility claims under the JJ Act—even decades later. It underscores that procedural fairness is foundational to criminal justice, and violations can render even otherwise strong convictions unsustainable.

---

🔗 Read more legal insights and case law breakdowns at:
👉 https://sahayatakanooni.blogspot.com/