PUNE: In a verdict bringing closure to a 26-year-old trial, an Additional Sessions Court in Pune has acquitted businessman Sayyad Gani Gafur in a corruption and sales tax fraud case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish evidence of conspiracy, cheating, forgery or corruption against him.

The case, registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in 1994 over alleged offences committed between 1985 and 1989, culminated in a judgment delivered on June 11, 2026.

Acquitting Gafur, the court observed: “Accused Sayyad Gani Gafur is hereby acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 201, 420, 467, 468, 470 and 477-A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.”

According to the prosecution, Gafur had allegedly conspired with a sales tax officer to manipulate assessment records, make false entries and cause wrongful loss to the Maharashtra government. The prosecution alleged that false assessment orders were passed in favour of a partnership firm, resulting in financial irregularities and wrongful gain.

However, the court found no material evidence supporting these allegations.

“There is absolutely no evidence against accused No. 2 that he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriated or otherwise converted for his own use any property entrusted to him,” the court noted.

The judgment further stated that none of the prosecution witnesses implicated the businessman in the alleged fraud.

“None of the witnesses stated that the accused cheated the government or caused wrongful loss. Witnesses have not stated that he was involved in making false purchase receipts or creating forged documents,” the court observed.

The FIR was registered on the complaint of an ACB officer, and the prosecution examined four witnesses and submitted documentary evidence. Despite this, the court held that the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery and corruption were not established.

The court also pointed to procedural deficiencies, including issues related to sanction and investigation authorisation under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

“The prosecution has not proved the sanction order issued by the sanctioning authority against accused No. 1,” the court observed, adding that the issue had limited relevance as the principal accused public servant had died during the proceedings.

It further noted that no valid order authorising the investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act had been placed on record.

“There is absolutely no incriminating evidence against accused No. 2,” the judgment stated.