Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 1548
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
Surinder Mohan Katwal - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 955 of 2012 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 2272, 2273, 2274, 2275 of 2011 and 200 of 2012
Decided On : 14-07-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Kuber Bodh, Ms. Ambika Matta, Mr. Navandeep Singh Matta, Mr. Niraj Gupta, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Mr. Amit Mehta, Mr. Vinod Sharma, Mr. Vishal Mahajan, Mr. Amarnath Singh and Mr. Bhaskar Y. Kulkarni, Mr. Ajay Bansal, Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR and Mr. Gaurav Yadav
For the Respondents: Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma and Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta
The central legal point established is the application of Sections 468 and 471 IPC in cases of overwriting marks and the lack of explanation, as well as the interpretation of the clauses of Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:
Corruption - Criminal Appeal - Prevention of Corruption Act, Sections 468 and 471 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Chairman of a services selection board, was convicted under Sections 468 and 471 IPC for overwriting marks in the selection process. He was acquitted of charges under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the conviction under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, noting overwriting of marks and lack of explanation from the appellant. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and he was taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the overwriting of marks in the selection process, the appellant's lack of explanation, and the application of relevant sections of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the appellant's actions did not fall within the clauses of Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as no valuable or pecuniary advantage was shown to have been obtained. The concurrent finding of overwriting and lack of explanation led to the upholding of the conviction under Sections 468 and 471 IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.
ORDER :
R. Banumathi, J.
This appeal arises out of the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2006 dated 11.03.2011 confirming the conviction of the appellant under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed on him. The High Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and other offences he was charged of.
2. Brief facts which lead to the filing of this Criminal Appeal are as follows: In the year 1999, appellant S.M. Katwal was working as Chairman of Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board (HPSSSB). Number of vacancies of Vidya Upasaks (a category of teachers came to be advertised in the year 2000. The recruitment was carried out in two stages viz., written test and viva-voce. Merit lists were prepared wherein the names, marks obtained in written test and marks obtained in viva-voce were indicated, which are earmarked as Exts. P-97 to P-100, Ext. P-102 to 105, Ext. P-107 to 111, Ext. 113 to 116, Ext. 118 to 121, Ext. P-123, Ext. P-125 to 128, Ext.130 to 132, Ext. 134 to 137 and Ext.138 to 145. On conclusion of viva voce test and such proceeding on the basis of those lists, proceedings of selection were also prepared, consisting of eight sheets and were earmarked as Ext.P-138 to P-145.
3. In the year when the new Government took over, it was decided that the proceedings of selection will be recorded afresh and accordingly, selection lists were sent to Government Examiner of Documents, who vide report Ext.PW18/E, opined that viva-voce marks of five candidates, namely, Satish Kumar, Prem Lal, Roshni Devi, Netar Singh and Swayam Prakash Sharma had been increased by overwriting. Based upon the inquiry report dated 02.04.2003 submitted by Mr. Satish Kumar Deputy Superintendent of Police, Enforcement South Zone, Shimla complaint was lodged by Department of Enforcement, Government of Himachal Pradesh, Kangra. FIR was registered against appellant S.M. Katwal under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 217, 218 and 120B IPC read with Sections 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 109, 193, 201 I.P.C. PW-18-Dr. Minakshi Mahajan, the handwriting expert opined that marks awarded to Zalam Singh in viva-voce test as also the aggregate of his marks i.e. marks secured in written test and viva-voce test had been changed in the aforesaid lists mentioned above.
4. Appellant-S.M. Katwal was charge-sheeted and prosecuted for the aforesaid offences. In all, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses and produced various documents to prove the guilt of the appellant. In his defence, the appellant maintained that he had been falsely implicated because of political vendetta. The appellant failed to offer any explanation regarding the overwriting in the merit lists; rather he simply denied that there was any overwriting.
5. The trial court found the appellant guilty and convicted him for offences punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 218, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The trial court imposed a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offence under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and rigorous imprisonment of one year for other offences and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each of the remaining offences.
6. Challenging his conviction, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court. State also went in appeal seeking enhancement of punishment. The High Court acquitted the appellant of charges under Sections 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 218, 465, 467 I.P.C. However, conviction under Sections 468 and 471 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment was maintained. The High court concluded that act of the appellant does not fall within any of the clauses of Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, because he is not shown to have obtained any valuable or pecuniary advantage for himself or any other person and a
