Authority: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: September 10, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Madasa Masih‑UI‑Uloom Educational and Charitable Trust (Trust); Respondents – State of Karnataka & Others.
  • The Trust appealed a High Court order that had refused to interfere with the order of the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which had rejected a discharge application.
  • Allegations: M/s I Monetary Advisory Private Limited (IMAP Limited) and its group companies collected investments from the public; investors/depositors complained of non‑refunds. FIRs were lodged by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and the State Anti‑Corruption Bureau under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The matter was later assigned to the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
  • Legal Question: Whether a Trust is a juristic person capable of being sued or accused under the Indian Penal Code, the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004, and related statutes.
  • Counsel: Sri Kanakamedla Ravindra Kumar (Additional Solicitor General, representing CBI) and Sri Nagamuthu (Senior Counsel for the petitioners).
  • The Court noted prior references to the issue, including Administrator Smt. Tara Bai Desai Charitable Ophthalmic Trust Hospital Jodhpur v. Managing Director Supreme Elevators India Pvt. Ltd. and Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal, where a three‑Judge Bench had not yet resolved the question.
  • The Court relied on earlier judgments such as National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Pratibha Pratisthan v. Manager, Canara Bank, which held that a Trust is not a legal person and cannot be a consumer or a party to a suit; liability rests with the trustees.
  • Specific allegations against the Trust involved the Managing Trustee (Accused No. 32) allegedly raising funds for IMAP Limited, using proceeds for real‑estate purchases and construction of educational institutions, and accepting money as donations, thereby implicating the Trust as an accused.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court held that a Trust is not a juristic person and therefore cannot be arrayed as an accused.
  • The proceedings in Special Court No. 1055 of 2019, pending before the LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court dealing with cases related to elected former and sitting MPs/MLAs) in Bengaluru, shall not be proceeded with against the Trust.
  • The Court limited its interference to the Trust; proceedings against other accused continue.
  • The appeal is allowed; any pending applications, if any, are rejected.
  • The order was pronounced by Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran.

Topics: Trust Law, Criminal Procedure