Khanindra Kr. Dutta Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Supreme Court of India)
Sixty-Two Witnesses, but No Money Trail: Section 13(1)(d) Cannot Convict Where Pecuniary Advantage Is Missing
Facts of the case
The prosecution arose from a complaint made by the Veterinary Department of Assam concerning an alleged loss of ₹5,97,200. The allegation was that false RCC bills had been submitted for the supply of medicines, although the medicines were never actually supplied. Payments were allegedly released in favour of a fictitious firm.
Seven persons were charge-sheeted. The appellant was the officer in charge of the store, while another accused was the storekeeper. The prosecution alleged that the storekeeper made entries in the store register showing receipt of medicines and that the appellant certified those entries, even though no medicines had been received.
Charges were framed u/ss 420, 465, 471 & 477A read with s.120B of the IPC and u/ss 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
High Court found no gain—but still sustained corruption conviction
The High Court accepted that the medicines shown in the records had not actually been received. At the same time, it categorically recorded that there was no evidence showing whether the appellant or the storekeeper had obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the alleged transaction.
