New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a former store in-charge of the Veterinary Department of the State of Assam under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, holding that a conviction under that provision cannot survive where the courts below have themselves found that no pecuniary advantage was obtained by the accused.
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Khanindra Kr. Dutta against the judgment of the High Court convicting him, while acquitting him and a co-accused of the substantive offences under the Indian Penal Code. Sri Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Counsel, appeared for the appellant, and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General, appeared for the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation.
The prosecution's case stemmed from a complaint received from the Veterinary Department of the State of Assam alleging a loss of Rs.5,97,200 caused by the submission of false RCC bills for supply of medicines that were never supplied, with payments having been made to a fictitious firm. Of the seven persons charge-sheeted, the trial court convicted four and acquitted three. Three of the convicted persons appealed before the High Court, which acquitted the accountant who had passed the bills, but upheld the conviction of the appellant, who was the store in-charge, and a co-accused storekeeper, under Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act.
It was alleged that entries recording receipt of medicines were made in the store register by the storekeeper and certified by the appellant, although the medicines were never in fact received. While convicting the appellant and the storekeeper under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act read with Section 120B of the IPC, the High Court had categorically acquitted them of the substantive offences under Sections 420, 471, 465 and 477A of the IPC, recording that there was no evidence to show that either of them had obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the alleged offence.
The Court noted that Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act requires the accused to have obtained, for himself or for any other person, a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, whether by corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of his official position. Since the High Court had itself found that no such advantage existed, the Supreme Court held that the conviction under this provision could not be sustained.
The Court observed that the evidence on record could have been read to sustain a conviction under the IPC provisions, particularly Sections 420 and 477A, which the High Court had failed to do, and that the CBI had also failed to challenge the erroneous acquittal on those charges, with the consequence that the benefit had necessarily to inure to the accused. It further noted that if no pecuniary advantage had been obtained, departmental disciplinary proceedings and quantification of the loss remained options that were never pursued.
Commenting on the manner in which corruption trials are conducted, the Court observed that “in corruption cases voluminous evidence is led, which is often intimidating to the Court, especially since many aspects attempted to be led in evidence are way off the mark, in providing a substantiation of the allegation, or to bring home the guilt of the accused-public servant.”
The Court pointed out that although the prosecution had examined 62 witnesses, the High Court's judgment referred to only nine of them eight being in-charges of Veterinary Dispensaries in various parts of the State who deposed that the medicines had not actually been supplied, and one being the owner of the firm in whose name the bills were raised, who denied receiving any money or supplying any medicines. It further noted the absence of any investigation to trace the money trail once the amounts were disbursed by the department.
Finding no reason to uphold the conviction under the provision on which the High Court had chosen to convict the appellant, the Supreme Court acquitted him, directing that he be released forthwith if in custody and not required in connection with any other case, and that his bail bonds stand cancelled if he was on bail. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Sri Siddharth Dave, Senior Advocate.
For the Respondent-CBI: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General.
Case Title: Khanindra Kr. Dutta vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal No. 1882 of 2024
