2012 (11) TMI 1313 - SC - Indian Laws

Illegal gratification - Criminal misconduct - Commission of offences punishable u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (Act) - Absence of sanction for prosecution - High Court rejected application filed for discharge in the criminal prosecution - HELD THAT - Adverting to the facts of the present case it has already been noticed that the only allegation against the Appellant is that he had prevailed upon RITES and IRCON to take the four employees in question on deputation for the sole purpose of sending them to London in connection with the medical treatment of the Appellant. It is also alleged that neither RITES nor IRCON had any pending business in London and that none of the four persons had not performed any duty pertaining to RITES or IRCON while they were in London; yet the to and fro air fare of all the four persons was paid by the above two Public Sector Undertakings. On the said basis it has been alleged that the accused Appellant had abused his office and caused pecuniary loss to the two Public Sector Undertakings by arranging the visits of the four persons in question to London without any public interest. This in essence is the case against the accused-appellant. It has already been noticed that the Appellant besides working as the Minister of Railways was the Head of the two Public Sector Undertakings in question at the relevant time. It also appears from the materials on record that the four persons while in London had assisted the Appellant in performing certain tasks connected with the discharge of duties as a Minister. As a Minister it was for the Appellant to decide on the number and identity of the officials and supporting staff who should accompany him to London if it was anticipated that he would be required to perform his official duties while in London. If in the process the Rules or Norms applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an extravagant display of redundance it is the conduct and action of the Appellant which may have been improper or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the same was actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain an undue pecuniary advantage will not be correct. That dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as a public servant. A similar view has also been expressed by this Court in M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala 1962 (12) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT while considering the provisions of Section 5 of Act of 1947. If the totality of the materials on record indicate the above position we do not find any reason to allow the prosecution to continue against the Appellant. Such continuance in our view would be an abuse of the process of court and therefore it will be the plain duty of the court to interdict the same. Thus we allow this appeal set aside the judgment and order dated 11.04.2012 of the High Court and the order dated 27.01.2010 of the learned trial court and quash the proceedings registered against the accused-appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of High Court's affirmation of the trial court's rejection of the discharge application.
2. Validity of the criminal prosecution under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Necessity of sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. Assessment of whether the allegations constitute an offence under Section 13(1)(d).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of High Court's affirmation of the trial court's rejection of the discharge application:
The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court's decision, which affirmed the trial court's rejection of the appellant's discharge application. The appellant had sought discharge from the criminal prosecution initiated against him, but both lower courts found prima facie evidence of an offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and examined the validity of the continuance of the criminal proceedings.

2. Validity of the criminal prosecution under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The FIR alleged that the appellant, during his tenure as Union Railway Minister, dishonestly compelled RITES and IRCON to approve journeys for his staff and domestic help to London for his medical treatment, causing pecuniary loss to these Public Sector Undertakings. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether these allegations and the evidence collected constituted an offence under Section 13(1)(d), which involves obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means, abusing one's position as a public servant, or without any public interest.

3. Necessity of sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The appellant's counsel did not contest the issue of absence of requisite sanction for prosecution. The court noted that the appellant had ceased to be a Minister and a Member of Parliament by 10.11.2000, making the question of obtaining sanction under Section 19 of the Act irrelevant. The Supreme Court focused on whether the allegations themselves warranted the continuance of the prosecution.

4. Assessment of whether the allegations constitute an offence under Section 13(1)(d):
The court examined the statements of witnesses and the role of the four individuals who accompanied the appellant to London. It was contended that they performed official duties, assisting the appellant in his ministerial functions. The court emphasized that criminal liability requires a guilty mind (mens rea) along with a forbidden act (actus reus). The evidence suggested that the appellant's actions, while possibly improper or contrary to departmental norms, did not demonstrate a dishonest intention to obtain pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position. The court concluded that the prosecution lacked the necessary mens rea and that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant, finding that the allegations did not constitute an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.