2016 (5) TMI 592 - SC - Indian Laws

Offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that - In the present case, no evidence at all is led by the prosecution to show that the appellant had abused his position and as a public servant, foreign currency which was found in his possession was the result of such abuse of position. It was not even the case set up by the prosecution that he had taken that money from some person and had obtained any pecuniary advantage thereby. It was the obligation of the prosecution to satisfy the aforesaid mandatory ingredients which could implicate the appellant under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(ii). The only argument which is sought to be raised is that when the aforesaid foreign currency was found in the possession of the appellant, he did not come out with any explanation as to from where he got this currency. This argument is beyond our comprehension. It is stated, at the cost of repetition, that it is the prosecution which has to prove its case in a criminal charge leveled against the accused person and it is not the accused person who has to put up his defence. Only when there is sufficient evidence placed on record by the prosecution which may prove the guilt of the accused person, the accused person may come out with the defence if he wants to meet the circumstances which have been proved against him at the time of trial. In the present case, when no such evidence is produced at all on the trial and when not even a case of this nature is set up by the respondent-prosecutor, there was no such obligation on the part of the appellant to state what could be his defense. We, thus, are of the opinion that on the basis of material collected by the prosecution, no case under the Act could be made out.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal abatement due to death of one appellant, charges under Section 120B IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, conviction by trial court and High Court, consideration of appeal for one remaining appellant, analysis of evidence against the appellant under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court judgment dealt with an appeal where one appellant passed away during the proceedings, resulting in abatement of his appeal. The remaining appellant, S.Devarajan, was the focus of consideration. The case involved charges under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused were officers at a State Bank of India Extension Counter, where malpractices were alleged. During an inspection, foreign currencies were found with the accused, leading to a case being registered against them.

The trial court convicted all three accused, a decision upheld by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court focused solely on the appeal of S.Devarajan. It was noted that he was not on duty during the inspection when foreign currency was found in his possession. The key issue was whether the mere seizure of money from him could establish a case under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. This section pertains to criminal misconduct by a public servant, requiring proof of abusing one's position to obtain a valuable advantage.

The prosecution did not assert that the appellant abused his position to gain the foreign currency. The Court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove the essential elements of the offense. It was highlighted that the accused is not obligated to present a defense unless the prosecution establishes a case against them. In this instance, as no evidence linked the money found with any abuse of position, the Court concluded that the case under the Act could not be substantiated. Consequently, the appeal of S.Devarajan was allowed, overturning the judgments of the lower courts, and his bail bonds were discharged.