The Supreme Court drew attention to the problem that investigative agencies submit an excessive amount of evidence and name a large number of witnesses in corruption cases. The court ruled that this practice leads to delays in judicial proceedings and prolonged case review periods.
When delivering an acquittal in a 33-year-old corruption case because the CBI could not prove that the accused received monetary benefits, the panel of judges J. B. Pardival and K. Vinod Chandran expressed concern about the agency involving a large number of unnecessary witnesses to support the accusation.
The court noted that the huge volume of documents presented by the CBI can exert pressure even on the court itself. The panel stated: 'We cannot fail to notice that a large volume of evidence is presented in corruption cases, which often frightens the court, especially considering that many aspects presented as evidence are far from the point, or do not confirm the accusation, or do not prove the guilt of the public servant.'
This case concerned a complaint filed by the Assam Veterinary Department. According to the complaint, the damage to the state treasury amounted to 5.97 lakh rupees because payment was made to a fictitious company for medicines that were never supplied. Seven individuals were charged in the case, four of whom were convicted and sentenced by the trial court, and three were acquitted.
Three convicts appealed to the High Court of Gauhati. One of them, an accountant who signed the invoice, was acquitted, but the appellant responsible for the warehouse and another accused, a storekeeper, were found guilty under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Subsequently, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. By allowing his appeal, the panel overturned his conviction and noted that in this case, the prosecution examined the testimony of 62 witnesses, which proved useless as the High Court only considered nine such witnesses.