Leading Voluminous Evidence Often Unnecessary: Supreme Court Raises Concern Over Long Pendency Of Corruption Cases
The Supreme Court was considering a matter challenging the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B of the IPC.
Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
While passing an order of acquittal in a corruption case, the Supreme Court has raised concern over the voluminous evidence led in corruption cases, which is often intimidating to the Court and which leads to long pendency.
The Apex Court was considering a matter challenging the conviction of the appellant under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C Act) read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Division Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “We cannot but notice 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.”
“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”, it added.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave represented the Appellant while AOR Shreekant Neelappa Terdal represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The investigation was initiated on a complaint received from the Veterinary Department of the State of Assam regarding loss of Rs 5,97,200 having been occasioned due to submission of false RCC Bills for supply of medicines, which were never supplied, but payments were made to a fictitious firm. Seven persons were charge-sheeted, out of which four were convicted by the Trial Court and three were acquitted. The three convicted filed an appeal before the High Court in which one person, the accountant who passed the bill, was acquitted, and the appellant, who was the in-charge of the store and the other accused, the storekeeper, were convicted under Section 13(1)(d).
It was alleged that the entries were made in the store register by the other convicted accused who is the storekeeper, which was certified by the appellant. The charges were under Sections 420, 471, 465, 477A read with Section 120B of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C Act. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, found that the evidence revealed that the storekeeper made entries in the store register and the store-in-charge certified the receipt of medicines, which were never received. The appellants were acquitted under Sections 420, 471, 465, 477A of the IPC while being convicted under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C Act read with Section 120B of the IPC.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, stated, “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.” As per the Bench, the evidence could have been read otherwise, to attract the provisions under the IPC; if not all of that charged, at least Sections 420 & 477A, which the High Court failed to do.
The Bench further noticed that the CBI too failed to challenge the erroneous order passed by the High Court. The Bench also took note of the fact that the offence alleged is of the year 1993 and it was submitted by the appellant, if there was no pecuniary advantage obtained, the department could have initiated disciplinary proceedings and even quantified the loss, which was not done.
The Bench found that the prosecution had examined 62 witnesses, which was of no avail, since the High Court referred to only 9 of such witnesses; 8 being the in-charge of the Veterinary Dispensaries in the various parts of the State, at the relevant period, to prove the supply of medicines having not been effected, as per the challans issued and bills passed. One other witness was the actual owner of the firm, who was the supplier, who appeared and denied receipt of any money or even the supply of medicines.
“We do not see any investigation having been taken to find out the money trail when the amounts were so disbursed from the department”, it stated, while finding no reason to uphold the conviction under the provision under which the High Court haD chosen to convict the appellant.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench acquitted the appellant.
Cause Title: Khanindra Kr. Dutta v. Central Bureau of Investigation (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 970)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, Advocates Jemtiben Ao, AOR Rohit Kumar-I, Advocates Shaileshwar Yadav, Shailendra Singh, Divyanshi Pundhir, Shevalik Singh, Shruti Tiwarie, Ritik Kumar, Sandeep Goyal
Respondent: Shreekant Neelappa Terdal