The Supreme Court has held that a public servant cannot be convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the absence of evidence establishing that the accused obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or another person.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran acquitted a former store-in-charge of Assam’s Veterinary Department who had been convicted in connection with allegedly false bills for medicines that were never supplied.
Buy Now: Recovery Of Tax Dues And Penalty Against Legal Heirs Of A Deceased Assessee : Case Compilation
The bench observed that the High Court had expressly found that there was no evidence showing that the accused obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary benefit from the alleged offence. Once such a finding had been recorded, the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) could not legally be sustained.
“Without a pecuniary advantage, there could be no conviction under Section 13(1)(d), which the High Court has categorically found, does not exist in the present case,” the Supreme Court held.
The investigation arose from a complaint submitted by the Veterinary Department of the State of Assam concerning an alleged loss of Rs.5,97,200.
According to the prosecution, false RCC bills were submitted for the supply of medicines. The medicines were allegedly never delivered, but payment was made to a fictitious firm.
Seven persons were charge-sheeted in the case. The trial court convicted four accused and acquitted the remaining three.
Three of the convicted persons subsequently approached the High Court. The High Court acquitted the accountant who had passed the bill. However, it maintained the conviction of the appellant, who was the store-in-charge, and another accused who was working as the storekeeper.
The prosecution alleged that the storekeeper made entries in the store register showing receipt of the medicines and that those entries were certified by the appellant in his capacity as store-in-charge.
The accused were charged under Sections 420, 471, 465 and 477A, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The High Court found that the storekeeper had entered the medicines in the store register and that the store-in-charge had certified their receipt even though the medicines had not actually been supplied.
At the same time, the High Court categorically recorded that there was no evidence demonstrating whether either accused had obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the alleged acts.
Despite this finding, the High Court acquitted them of the IPC offences but convicted them under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 120B of the IPC.
The Supreme Court examined the ingredients of Section 13(1)(d), as it stood at the relevant time.
The provision covered a public servant who, through corrupt or illegal means, obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or another person. It also applied where such a benefit was obtained by abusing the position of public office or without any public interest.
The Court emphasised that obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage was an essential ingredient of the offence. Therefore, a conviction could not be maintained when the High Court itself had found that this element was not established.
The Bench noted that the evidence could possibly have been appreciated differently to attract certain offences under the IPC, particularly Sections 420 and 477A. However, the High Court had acquitted the accused of those offences, and the Central Bureau of Investigation did not challenge that part of the judgment.
Consequently, the benefit of the unchallenged acquittal had to go to the accused.
The Supreme Court also pointed to a significant deficiency in the investigation: the failure to trace the money after it was disbursed by the department.
The Bench said that it did not find any investigation undertaken to ascertain the money trail, even though the prosecution’s case involved departmental funds allegedly paid on the basis of false bills.
The alleged offence dated back to 1993. The appellant’s senior counsel submitted that if no pecuniary advantage had been obtained, the department could have initiated disciplinary proceedings and quantified the loss allegedly caused. Neither step was taken.
The judgment also contains wider observations concerning the manner in which corruption prosecutions are conducted.
The Supreme Court noted that voluminous evidence is frequently produced in corruption cases, which can become intimidating for courts. Much of that evidence, it said, may be unrelated to proving the allegation or establishing the guilt of the accused public servant.
In the present case, the prosecution examined 62 witnesses. The High Court, however, referred to only nine of them.
Eight of those witnesses were officers in charge of veterinary dispensaries in different parts of Assam. Their evidence was relied upon to show that medicines mentioned in the challans and bills had not been supplied.
The ninth witness was the actual owner of the firm claimed to be the supplier. The witness denied having supplied the medicines or received any payment.
The Supreme Court observed that the large number of witnesses ultimately did not assist the prosecution in establishing the essential elements of the corruption charge.
“Prosecution in corruption cases have a history of long pendency; especially because of the voluminous evidence led, which often is unnecessary and, as we noticed, mostly irrelevant,” the Bench remarked.
Finding no reason to uphold the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant.
The Court directed that if the appellant was in custody, he should be released immediately unless required in another case. If he was already on bail, his bail bonds would stand cancelled.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
