Supreme Court - Daily Orders
K. Rajaraman vs The State Through Dsp Of Police on 13 May, 2025
1
ITEM NO.1709 COURT NO.9 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 21836/2025
K. RAJARAMAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE THROUGH DSP OF POLICE Respondent(s)
IA No. 116723/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 116725/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 116726/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM SURRENDERING WITHIN TIME Date : 13-05-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE [IN CHAMBERS] For Petitioner(s) Mr. D P Singh, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Sonam Gupta, AOR Mr. Saumay Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Shiva Pande, Adv. Ms. Ritvika Poswal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R I.A. No. 116726/2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The applicant/petitioner, by way of present application, prays for exemption from surrendering.
The learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that Signature Not Verified the Trial Court as well as the High Court without assessing the Digitally signed by GEETA JOSHI Date: 2025.05.14 16:16:59 IST Reason: evidence in its proper perspective, recorded the judgment and order of conviction. Accordingly, the sentence was awarded to the 2 applicant for commission of offence under Section 13(1)(d) PC Act. The learned counsel submits that there are serious lacunae in the case of prosecution such as, though the prosecution claims that the accused who was discharging his duty as a Branch Manager at the relevant time without following the certain norms, disbursed the loans resulting in loss of public exchequer, there was absolutely no material to support the case of prosecution. The witness has been examined by the prosecution and particularly, the witnesses who were the bank officials were unable to show before the Trial Court that in what way and in what manner the applicant had committed breach of the norms. Thus, the submission is that the Trial Court and the High Court without there being any legally acceptable evidence against the applicant/petitioner only on assumptions and presumptions recorded the judgment of conviction and sentence. The Trial Court recorded the judgment and awarded sentence and the same is mechanically confirmed by the High Court. The learned counsel further submits that the alleged incident took place between 2003 to 2006 and at that time, the applicant was in his late 40s. When the judgment was passed by the Trial Court, he was in his late 50s and when the judgment was passed by the High Court, he is in his advance age of 70 years.
The petitioner is also having age related health issues particularly, he is under cardiac treatment. The learned counsel for the petitioner made out a case for exemption from surrendering.3
Accordingly, the petitioner is exempted from surrendering till further orders.
(GEETA JOSHI) (NIDHI BHARDWAJ) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR