2017 (8) TMI 1701 - SC - Indian Laws

Criminal Misconduct - Acquisition of assets disproportionate to known sources of income - applying corrupt and illegal means while acting as a public servant - benefit of doubt - Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) - HELD THAT - The accusations on which the charge under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Act were framed against the appellant. Admittedly, having regard to the ultimate figures as calculated by the Courts below, the charge has undergone a metamorphosis. This assumes immense significance in view of the fact that no fresh charge had been framed on the allegations for which the appellant was eventually convicted and sentenced. Any adverse inference prejudicial to the appellant was thus not available in law, he not having been confronted with the altered imputations. To reiterate, the charge for which the appellant finally has been convicted wears a new complexion different from the one with which he had been arraigned at the initiation of the trial. The appellant thus for all practical purposes was subjected to a trial involving fleeting frames of accusations of which he was denied prior notice. This is clearly opposed to the fundamental precepts of a criminal prosecution. A person cannot be subjected to a criminal prosecution either for a charge which is amorphous and transitory and further on evidence that is conjectural or hypothetical. The appellant in the determinations before the Courts below has been subjected to a trial in which both the charges and evidence on aspects with vital bearing thereon lacked certitude, precision and unambiguity. In case the prosecution fails to prove that the public servant either by himself or through anyone else had at any time during the period of his office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, he would not be required in law to offer any explanation to satisfactorily account therefor. A public servant facing such charge, cannot be comprehended to furnish any explanation in absence of the proof of the allegation of being in possession by himself or through someone else, pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the charge of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act and punishable under Section 13(2) thereof against the appellant. He is thus entitled to the benefit of doubt. The prosecution to succeed in a criminal trial has to pitch its case beyond all reasonable doubt and lodge it in the realm of must be true category and not rest contended by leaving it in the domain of may be true - the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the conviction under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Calculation of the appellant's income and expenditure during the check period.
3. Admissibility and reliability of the prosecution's evidence.
4. Application of legal standards for proving disproportionate assets.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the conviction under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The appellant challenged the judgment affirming his conviction under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Supreme Court noted that the prosecution failed to account for the appellant's agricultural income and salary for certain periods, which were crucial for determining whether the assets were disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Court emphasized that the charge for which the appellant was convicted was different from the one framed initially, leading to a trial based on speculative calculations and assumptions.

2. Calculation of the appellant's income and expenditure during the check period:
The Trial Court and the High Court undertook independent calculations of the appellant's income and expenditure. The Trial Court initially omitted the appellant's agricultural income and certain salary periods but later included them based on inferences and assumptions. The High Court reduced the household expenditure percentage and recalculated the agricultural income, but these calculations were still based on speculative assumptions. The Supreme Court found these methodologies flawed, as they were not based on concrete evidence.

3. Admissibility and reliability of the prosecution's evidence:
The prosecution's evidence included testimonies from investigating officers and documentary evidence. However, the investigating officers admitted to not accounting for significant portions of the appellant's income, such as agricultural earnings and omitted salary periods. The Supreme Court highlighted that the prosecution's failure to include these incomes led to incorrect calculations of disproportionate assets, rendering the evidence unreliable.

4. Application of legal standards for proving disproportionate assets:
Section 13(1)(e) requires the prosecution to prove that a public servant possessed assets disproportionate to known sources of income. The Supreme Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish this beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution's failure to account for all sources of income and reliance on speculative calculations meant that the charge was not proven to the required legal standard. The Court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt, as the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Court emphasized the necessity for the prosecution to present concrete and reliable evidence when alleging possession of disproportionate assets by a public servant.