In Brief
This case involved a criminal appeal against the conviction of three BHEL officers and a contractor for alleged conspiracy to cheat BHEL in awarding a desalination plant contract. The Supreme Court acquitted all appellants, finding that the prosecution's case rested primarily on the unreliable testimony of a single approver whose own admissions contradicted the conspiracy allegations. The Court held that the prosecution failed to obtain mandatory sanction under Section 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code before prosecuting the Executive Director. For the other accused, the Court found that BHEL suffered no actual loss (having recovered funds through invoking bank guarantees), that handwriting evidence establishing forgery was procedurally improper, and that convictions under Section 193 IPC lacked any specific allegation of false evidence in judicial proceedings. The judgment emphasizes that approver testimony must be corroborated and meet strict reliability standards before convictions can be sustained.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.