The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, holding that (1) Appellant No. 3’s juvenility under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 invalidated his conviction, and (2) the trial court’s failure to properly examine all appellants under Section 313 CrPC – by not putting material incriminating evidence to them – vitiated the trial, causing irreversible prejudice given the 40-year case delay.
Facts Of The Case:
The case involved a 1982-83 bank fraud where accused persons, including appellants Ramji Prasad Jaiswal and his two sons Ashok Kumar Jaiswal and Bal Mukund Jaiswal, allegedly conspired with SBI branch manager Ajay Kumar Srivastava (since deceased) to fraudulently obtain ₹13.29 lakh using fake transport receipts from their non-existent firm ‘Rohtas Carriers’. The CBI registered FIRs in 1983, filed charges in 1984, and after a prolonged trial, the Special Judge convicted all accused in 2006 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act provisions, sentencing them to 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction in 2011. In their Supreme Court appeal, appellant No. 3 (Bal Mukund) proved through school records he was 17 years old during the offense, making him a juvenile under the JJ Act. For all appellants, the Court found the trial court committed grave procedural errors by failing to properly examine them under Section 313 CrPC – merely asking 4 generic questions without confronting them with specific incriminating evidence from 27 prosecution witnesses, including key testimonies about their involvement in the fake transport receipts scheme.
Procedural History:
The case originated with two FIRs registered by CBI on 23.06.1983 regarding a 1982 bank fraud scheme in Mohania, Bihar. After investigation, charges were filed on 31.12.1984 before the Special CBI Court, Patna, which framed charges on 02.09.1986. Following a protracted trial involving 27 prosecution witnesses, the Special Judge convicted all accused on 29.05.2006 under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act provisions, sentencing them to 3 years’ rigorous imprisonment. Two criminal appeals (Nos. 418/2006 and 430/2006) filed before the Patna High Court were dismissed on 24.11.2011. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court via SLP(Crl) No. 2629/2012 (registered as Crl.A. No. 490/2025). During Supreme Court proceedings in 2012, Appellant No. 3 successfully raised juvenility claims under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, supported by school records showing he was 17 during the offense. The Court also noted fatal procedural flaws in the trial court’s examination of accused under Section 313 CrPC. After considering these issues, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 20.05.2025, setting aside the convictions and acquitting all appellants.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court: Joint Family Property Disputes Need Evidence, Not Quick Rejection
Court Observation:
The Court made three crucial findings: First, it confirmed Appellant No. 3’s juvenility under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, noting his school records proved he was 17 when the offense occurred in 1982, rendering his conviction legally unsustainable. Second, the Bench strongly criticized the trial court’s “mechanical” compliance with Section 313 CrPC, observing that merely asking four generic questions without confronting the accused with specific incriminating evidence from 27 witnesses violated their right to fair explanation under the audi alteram partem principle. Third, the Court held this procedural defect caused irreversible prejudice – especially given the 40-year case delay – making remand impractical, as witnesses were unlikely to be available for fresh examination. The judgment emphasized that proper Section 313 compliance requires courts to specifically put all material circumstances to the accused, and failure to do so vitiates the trial when prejudice is shown, as in this case where the conviction heavily relied on unconfronted evidence.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the convictions of all three appellants in its judgment dated May 20, 2025. For Appellant No. 3 (Bal Mukund Jaiswal), the Court ruled his conviction was legally unsustainable as he was a juvenile (aged 17) during the 1982 offense under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to try him. Regarding Appellants No. 1 and 2 (Ramji Prasad Jaiswal and Ashok Kumar Jaiswal), the Court held their convictions stood vitiated due to the trial court’s fundamental non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC procedures – specifically its failure to confront them with incriminating evidence from 27 prosecution witnesses through proper questioning. Noting the 40-year delay since the offense, the Court declined to remand the matter for fresh trial, observing it would cause further injustice. The Bench canceled the appellants’ bail bonds and acquitted all accused, while clarifying this decision was based solely on procedural grounds without commenting on the case’s merits. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan emphasized that criminal trials must strictly adhere to due process safeguards, especially when dealing with aged cases where memories fade and evidence becomes stale.
Case Details:
Case Title:Ramji Prasad Jaiswal @ Ramjee Prasad Jaiswal & Ors. vs. State of Bihar Citation:2025 INSC 738 Criminal Appeal No.:Criminal Appeal No. 490 of 2025 Date of Judgment:May 20, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Download The Judgement Here