Summary
A junior engineer was convicted under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 477A IPC. The charge was that he corrected measurement-book totals for two school-construction works after a complaint, showing excess expenditure. The Supreme Court acquitted him. The Investigating Officer admitted that payments for material went directly from the Panchayat Samiti to the Gram Sewak without the appellant's verification, and that nothing showed the appellant made the corrections after the complaint. The Inquiry Officer found the measurements correct and no irregularity at one site. Nothing showed that the appellant attempted to obtain a pecuniary advantage, or that any irregularity was wilful with intent to defraud. Convictions resting on findings that ignore such vital admissions are perverse.
Issues
- Whether the conviction under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15 of the PC Act could stand without evidence that the appellant obtained or attempted to obtain any pecuniary advantage.
- Whether the conviction under Section 477A IPC could stand without evidence that the entries were made wilfully with intent to defraud.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact that ignore vital admissions may be interfered with under Article 136.
Provisions considered
- Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The offence requires proof that the public servant attempted to obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or another by abusing his position. There was no such evidence. (¶¶ 11, 13)
- Section 477A, Indian Penal Code, 1860Falsifying accounts requires that a false entry, omission or alteration be made wilfully with intent to defraud. At most an irregularity was shown. (¶¶ 14, 18, 19)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConcurrent findings may be interfered with when they are perverse, based on no evidence or reached by ignoring material evidence (Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar). (¶¶ 10, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
Held
- The Investigating Officer admitted that material payments and bills went directly between the Panchayat Samiti and the Gram Sewak, with no verification by the appellant, who supervised 100 to 125 works. He also admitted that nothing showed the appellant made the corrections after the complaint, that he had recommended only a departmental inquiry, and that the appellant had himself complained about the Gram Sewak. Without proof of any attempt to obtain pecuniary advantage, the PC Act conviction could not stand. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The Inquiry Officer found the recorded measurements correct and no irregularity at Mankot. He accepted that totalling mistakes could be corrected by the accounts branch, and that material at the unguarded Surjanpur site could have been removed by anyone. At most there was an irregularity, with nothing to show wilful falsification with intent to defraud, so the Section 477A conviction also failed. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Concurrent findings of fact are ordinarily not disturbed under Article 136, but concurrence is no answer to perversity. Findings that ignore vital admissions in the prosecution's own evidence are perverse and may be set aside. (¶¶ 10, 21, 22, 24, 25)
Result
Appeal allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judge and confirmed by the High Court were set aside. The appellant was acquitted of all charges and his bail bonds discharged.