1. Appeal against High Court order quashing charges under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 878
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Jayachandra Reddy : M.M.Punchhi
State By Special Police Establishment
Versus
D.Krishnamurthy
Case No. : 288 of 1990
Date of Decision : 9/8/94
Under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, conviction requires proof that a public servant abused their official position to obtain a pecuniary advantage; mere illegal acquisition of such advantage, without abuse of position, is insufficient.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Section 5(1)(d) - Public servant obtaining valuable thing or pecuniary advantage - Requirement of abuse of position - If a public servant obtains any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, they must, in any event, for doing so, abuse their position as a public servant - Mere evidence that a public servant obtained an advantage by illegal or corrupt means, without the abuse of position, is insufficient to sustain a charge under this section. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A public servant was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The High Court quashed the charge, leading to an appeal by the state.
Findings of Court:
The charge against the respondent was rightly quashed by the High Court as the prosecution case lacked evidence that the public servant abused their official position to obtain the advantage.
Issues: Whether the mere acquisition of a pecuniary advantage or valuable thing by a public servant, even by illegal or corrupt means, is sufficient for conviction under Section 5(1)(d) in the absence of proof that the official position was abused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the language of Section 5(1)(d) is clear and unambiguous; for a conviction, it must be established that the public servant abused their position as a public servant to obtain the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Without such abuse, the charge cannot be sustained.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
corruption
- prevention of corruption act (Para 2)
-
corruption
Table of Contents
2. Dispute regarding a supposed conflict between precedents concerning the interpretation of Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. (Para 2 )
3. Court found no conflict between cited precedents and observed that Section 5(1)(d) requires the public servant to have abused their position to obtain an advantage. (Para 2 )
4. Liability under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, requires proof that the public servant abused their position to obtain a pecuniary advantage. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed and the High Court order quashing the charge upheld. (Para 2 )
6. What is the essential requirement for a charge under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?
The public servant must have abused their position as a public servant to obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for themselves or another person. (Para 2 )
7. Is obtaining a pecuniary advantage by illegal or corrupt means sufficient for a conviction under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947?
No, obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by illegal or corrupt means is insufficient unless it is accompanied by the abuse of the public servant's position. (Para 2 )
(1) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2) WE have gone through the impugned judgment and order of the High Court carefully and have also examined the question about the supposed conflict between the two decisions of this court in State of Gujarat v. Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi and Dhaneshwar N arain Saxena v. Delhi Admn. On reading these two precedents, there seems to us to be no conflict whatsoever. The language of Section 5(1(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is clear and unambiguous in the sense that if a public servant by whatever means, be they corrupt or illegal, obtains for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage must, in any event, for doing so, abuse his position as a public servant, (emphasis supplied) If such abuse of his position as a public servant, is lacking in the prosecution case, and there is evidence barely to the effect, that he has by some means, be they illegal or corrupt, obtained for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, that by itself would not be enough. It thus appears to us that instantly the charge against the respondent was rightly quashed by the High court. There is no merit m this appeal which is ordered to be dismissed.
