1995 Supreme(SC) 724

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN-UDDIN, JJ.
A. Jayaram and another, Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, By C.B.I., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 310 of 1989, with Cri. Appeals Nos. 308, 309, 311 to 317 of 1989, 163 to 166 and 184 to 185 of 1994
Decided on 13-7-1995.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. T. S. Tulsi, Addl. Solicitor General; Mr. K. Madras Reddy and Ms. Amreshwari Sr. Advocates, Mr. K. R. Choudhary, Mr. G. Narasimhlu, 2129 Mr. A. S. Nambiar, Mr. V. V. Vaze, Mr. D. Satyanarayan, Mr. R. P. Srivastava, Mr. Hemant Sharma, Mr. W. A. Quardi, Mr. P. Parmeswaran and C. B. Babu Advocates with them, for the appearing Parties.
* Cri A. No. 918 of 1982, D/- 9-6-1987 (AP).

Headnote:(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B/420 - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 5 (2) r/ws. 5 (1) (d) - Conviction of Government Ot1icials for offences under - Scandal in transporting imported fertilisers from ports of arrival to different destinations in state - Prosecution case that large scale fraud committed by a large number of government officials in consipiracy with dealers entrusted to take fertilisers from port to government godowns - No evidence proving factum of non-delivery of such fertilisers with reference to actual stock position on relevant date - Senior Officials not examined - Absence of unimpeachable direct evidence about actual stock position at receiving end - Accused deserve benefit of doubt Conviction not sustainable.

       Held: It is not the case of the prosecution that the quality of the fertilisers was required to be examined by the officers at the receiving end and they had proper infrastructure to make such exercise. It has been rightly contended that it was not established that the fertilisers was not available anywhere in the locality so that it was not possible to replace the quantity of fertiliser after selling the original consignment. Simply on the basis of evidence given by lorry owners that their lorries did not carry the fertiliser or such lorries had gone to different places and some fertilisers were sold by the dealers to other persons, non delivery of fertiliser at the destination by other means can not be fully ruled out. The circumstances are undoubtedly very intriguing and raise considerable doubt but in the absence of unimpeachable direct evidence about the actual stock position at the receiving end, the indirect circumstantial evidences, in our view do not establish the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is true that there is no absolute standard of proof in a criminal trial and the court should not nurture fanciful doubts by exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt but in a case of circumstantial evidence all the links in the chain of events from which irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged can be drawn, must be established beyond the pale of reasonable doubt. The court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof. Conviction can not be based on circumstances indicating that the prosecution case is quite likely to betrue. Forbasing the conviction in a case governed by circumstantial evidence, the facts established must rule out any likelihood of innocence of the accused. The exact stock position on the alleged date of delivery of fertiliser which, would have repelled any other possibility is unfortunately not forthcoming. It does not appear that any attempt to establish the actual stock position of fertiliser in the godown in question on the relevant date or soon thereafter with reference to register of stock or any other contemporaneous documents has been made. It is only through negative and indirect evidence the prosecution is attempting to establish that the fertiliser had not been delivered. Such evidence would have been very convincing to corroborate the direct evidence about the stock position in the event the correctness of such stock position was challenged. So long the possibility of some other conclusion cannot be fully ruled out, the prosecution case remains in the realm of probability. (Para 22)

       Further Held: That although the High Court reversed the orders of acquittal in convicting the government officials, the High Court perhaps felt that some convincing evidences were lacking and it is not unlikely that for the said reasons, although the High Court convicted the government officials for serious offences charged against them only a token sentence of fine of Rs. 100/- and detention till the rising of the Court had been passed which sentence normally should not have been passed. (para 23)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 477A - Fertiliser Scandal Case - Direct evidence to show that fertilisers were not transported by dealers in manner alleged by them - Order of conviction against dealers sustainable.

       Held: That direct and positive evidences have been led by the prosecution to show that the fertilisers were, not transported by the dealers in the manner alleged by them. If the dealers had transported the fertilisers by a different route or by any other transport and if they had sold different fertilisers, such facts were within their special knowledge and in the facts of the case, the dealers ought to have satisfied the court that the fertilisers had in fact been transported by other transports and in a manner different from what was mentioned in the bills. The evidence adduced by the prosecution by a examining lorry owners, clerks of such owners, officers of the check posts on the usual routes convincingly point out that the fertiliser was not transported in the way it appeared in the bills since certified by the government officials at the destination. If some fertilisers of equal quantity had been handed over at the destination, it was not unlikely that the government officials having taken delivery of such fertilisers without appreciating the fraud and with reference to the record of loading of the fertiliser at port, would be justified in issuing certificate about transportation at reasonable rate by the shortest route. As the possibility of delivering fertiliser of similar quantity which may not be qualitatively same, by procuring them locally, when non availability of fertiliser in the region had not been established by the prosecution, cannot be fully ruled out, the government officers, in our view, were entitled to benefit of doubt. But in the facts of the case, such benefit will not be available to the dealers. (Para 24)

       Result: Ordered accordingly - Observations made regarding the tardy enquiries made by the State police thereby necessitating an enquiry by the CBI at a belated stage.