BISWAJIT DAS versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 110 · Decided: 15-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 110 : 2025 INSC 85
Biswajit Das 
v. 
Central Bureau of Investigation 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2052 of 2014)
16 January 2025
[Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Conviction for offences under section 468 r/w section 120(B), 
section  271 and section 465 r/w 120(B) and section 420 r/w 
section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) as well 
as section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of 
Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”). He was sentenced to rigorous 
imprisonment for a year for offences under ss.271 and 465 r/w 
section 120(B) and two years rigorous imprisonment for all other 
IPC offences. For offences under PC Act, he was sentenced 
to rigorous imprisonment of 3 years. The appeal against the 
conviction was dismissed by the High Court of Assam at Gauhati. 
Hence the SLP was filed. While issuing notice in the matters, the 
Hon’ble Supreme Court confined it to question as to whether the 
petitioner could have been convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read 
with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and on the quantum of sentence 
for the other offences.
The question that arose for consideration in the captioned case 
was as to whether the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has the 
power to expand the scope of the appeal, hear on all the points 
and record an order acquitting the appellant, if satisfied.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Articles 136 and 142 – Expansion of 
scope of appeal in light of decision in Yomeshbhai Pranshankar 
Bhatt v. State of Gujarat (2011) 6 SCC 312; Kutchi Lal Raeshwar 
Ashram Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust v. Collector, Haridwar 
(2017) 16 SCC 418 and Indian Bank v. Godhara Nagrik Coop. 
Credit Society Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 541 – Considered and relied 
on:
Held: This Hon’ble Court while acquitting the accused in Yomeshbhai 
Pranshankar Bhatt v. State of Gujarat (2011) 6 SCC 312, a case 
where limited notice was issued while granting leave and at the 
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 
111
Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation
stage of hearing the expansion of the scope was sought for, held 
that: (a) by exercising Article 142 of the Constitution this Court in 
exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decrees and may make 
such orders as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 
case or matters pending before it; (b) No fetter is imposed on the 
Court’s jurisdiction except of course any express provision of the 
law to the contrary and normally this Court cannot ignore the same 
while exercising its power under Article 142; (c) An order passed 
by the Court at the time of admitting a petition does not have the 
status of an express provision of law and the observations in it are 
tentative observations which cannot limit this Court’s jurisdiction 
under Article 142 – While deciding Kutchi Lal Raeshwar Ashram 
Trust Evam Anna Kshetra Trust v. Collector, Haridwar (2017) 16 
SCC 418 reliance was placed on Indian Bank v. Godhara Nagrik 
Coop. Credit Society Ltd. (2008) 12 SCC 541 and it was held that 
Article 142 embodies the fundamental principle that the jurisdiction 
of the Court is to render complete justice – When the Court initially 
issues a limited notice but subsequently grants leave, the scope 
of the appeal does not raise a matter of jurisdiction but of judicial 
discretion and the guiding principle has to be the advancement of 
substantial justice. [Paras 10,11,13-14]
Art. 136 of Constitution of India – Expansion of scope of 
appeal – Taherakhatoon (D) by Lrs. vs. Salambin Mohammad 
(1999) 2 SCC 635 and Spring Meadows Hospital v. Harjol 
Ahluwalia (1998) 4 SCC 39 – Distinguished:
Held: The question involved in Taherakhatoon (D) by Lrs. v. 
Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635 was not with regard 
to the scope of expansion of notice in an SLP but with regard 
to the continued discretionary power vested in the Court at the 
stage when the appeal comes up for hearing after admission of 
SLP under Article 136 of the Constitution – In Spring Meadows 
Hospital v. Harjol Ahluwalia (1998) 4 SCC 39 this Court displayed 
guarded approach regarding expansion of scope of appeal – But 
it was a decision rendered in a statutory appeal under Consumer 
Protection Act, 1986 and not in an appeal after granting leave 
under Article 136. [Paras 8-9,12-14]
Recent development of jurisprudence in criminal matters – 
Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2023) 9 SCC 
164 – Referred to: 
Held: In Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat (2023) 9 
SCC 164,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.