Supreme Court Issues Notice To Convict For Misleading It For Favourable Order

What exactly happened?

• Shankar was convicted by a trial court for the offences under Section 120B (punishment for criminal conspiracy) and Section 406 (Punishment for criminal breach of trust) and was awarded a year in jail and fine of Rs.100.
• Thereafter, he had filed an appeal before the High Court's verdict wherein the trial court's judgement was confirmed.
• Shankar's lawyer contended before the Supreme Court that he was not awarded a jail term of one year but only a fine of Rs.1000 was imposed on him (Rs.500 each for offences of criminal breach of trust and conspiracy) and that the Andhra Pradesh High Court “wrongly construed” the operative portion of the trial court's judgement.

What exactly happened?

• The apex court in 2019 while granting him relief said that, “Since we find that the trial court had merely imposed a sentence of payment of fine of Rs 1,000 on the appellant,the judgment of the high court is clarified accordingly.
• In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of, making it clear that no sentence of imprisonment was imposed on Accused No. 5 (Shankar) by the trial court and the high court."
• A subsequent inquiry into the matter and a report by the secretary general of the Supreme Court indicated differently which has led to reopening of the case.

NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT

• The inquiry and the report indicated that prima facie the court has been misled by the accused in order to avoid a jail term and the court observed that, "After perusal of the report submitted by the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, we are satisfied that the appellant – S Shankar misled this court by producing wrong copy of the judgment dated December 31, 2000 passed by the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad."
• A bench comprising justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose while serving a show cause notice to the accused said that, "Let, therefore, show-cause notice be issued to the appellant – S Shankar as to why order dated July 23, 2019, passed by this court, be not recalled and modified, and further suitable action be not taken against him" while granting a period of four weeks to him to respond.

What are your views on the entire case? Let us know in the comment section below. /strong>