In Criminal Cases, Principle Of Proof Is Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Contrary To Procedure Followed The Departmental Enquiry: Telangana HC
The Telangana High Court has highlighted that although in departmental inquiries the conclusions are drawn based on the preponderance of probabilities, in criminal cases the principle of proof is that beyond reasonable doubt.
In that context, the Bench of Justice K Surender observed that, "Departmental enquiry conducted by any enquiry officer, who is appointed will conduct enquiry on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and inferences or conclusions will be drawn on the basis of the evidence that is placed before him and/or collected. However in criminal cases, the principle of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, contrary to the procedure followed in the departmental enquiry."
The case involved a complaint lodged by the Registrar of Osmania University, alleging large-scale embezzlement and misappropriation of funds by certain individuals employed in administrative roles within the university. Following the complaint, the Director General of the Anti Corruption Bureau ordered an investigation, which resulted in the filing of a charge sheet against several individuals, including A1 to A11.
The charges primarily revolved around the issuance and encashment of self-cheques, misappropriation of funds meant for overtime allowances, and fraudulent procurement of printing material and equipment.
During the trial, the prosecution presented witnesses and documents, while the defense argued that the allegations were based on incomplete investigations and lacked evidence against all accused individuals.
The Court ultimately convicted A3 to A5 and A7 to A11 on various charges related to corruption and misappropriation, while the defence contended that the evidence against them was insufficient and lacked proper investigation. The prosecution argued that the accused had misused their positions and failed to account for the funds entrusted to them, leading to their conviction by the trial court.
The Court observed that, "The case is one of circumstantial evidence. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the circumstances of the case by admissible and legal evidence. All such circumstances cumulatively should form a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused leading to the only conclusion of the guilt of the accused."
With that background, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to provide evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and accordingly, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants.
Cause Title: C. Bala Malleshwar Rao vs The State of Telangana
Click here to read/download the Judgment
