{
  "id": 7418106,
  "title": "Voluminous evidence in graft cases leading to long pendency: SC",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/14/voluminous-evidence-in-graft-cases-leading-to-long-pendency-sc",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-09-14T22:46:31.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Times of India",
    "slug": "times-of-india",
    "url": "https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/voluminous-evidence-in-graft-cases-leading-to-long-pendency-sc/articleshow/134249276.cms"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "The Supreme Court has criticized the practice of prosecutors filing extensive evidence and identifying numerous witnesses in corruption cases, as it results in prolonged trials and prolonged pendency of cases. In a case involving a 33-year-old corruption allegation, the court acquitted a person on the grounds that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) failed to prove that the accused received any pecuniary advantage. The bench expressing concern over the excessive number of witnesses named by the prosecution to substantiate the charges.\n\nThe court noted that voluminous documents filed by the CBI can be intimidating to the court itself, as many aspects presented in the evidence are irrelevant to proving the allegation or demonstrating the guilt of the accused public servant. The case in question involved a complaint filed by the Assam veterinary department alleging a loss of Rs 5.97 lakh to the exchequer due to the payment of medicines to a fictitious firm that never supplied them. Seven persons were charged, of whom four were convicted and sentenced by a trial court, and three were acquitted.\n\nThree convicts appealed to the Gauhati High Court, where one was acquitted, while the petitioner (store in charge), and the other accused (storekeeper) were convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner subsequently moved the Supreme Court, which allowed his appeal and set aside his conviction. The bench observed that the prosecution had examined 62 witnesses in this case, but only nine of them were relevant, as the High Court had ruled out the rest.",
  "summary": null,
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}