2023 Supreme(SC) 586

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.
A. Srinivasulu - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2417 of 2010, Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No.2444 of 2010
Decided on : 15-06-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Sanction for prosecution of public servant – There must be reasonable connection between the act and discharge of official duty.
(2) Conviction based upon such a person who is unworthy of credit, cannot be sustained.
(3) An accomplice is a competent witness – Conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.
(4) Comparison of signature – In absence of either admission or proof of admitted signatures, Court cannot resort to Section 73 of Evidence Act.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 197 – Sanction for prosecution of public servant – There must be a reasonable connection between the act and discharge of official duty – Act must bear such relation to duty that accused could lay a reasonable but not a pretended or fanciful claim, that he did it in course of performance of his duty – If in doing his official duty, he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between the act and performance of official duty, excess will not be a sufficient ground to deprive public servant of protection – To decide whether sanction is necessary, test is whether act is totally unconnected with official duty or whether there is a reasonable connection with official duty. (Paras 38, 39 and 42)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, Section 471 read with Section 468 and Section 193 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 197 – Cheating, forgery and conspiracy – Conviction and sentence – A-1 to A-4, being officers of a company coming within description contained in Twelfth item of Section 21 of IPC, were ‘public servants’ within definition of said expression under Section 21 of IPC – No previous sanction under Section 197(1) of Code was sought for prosecuting A-1 – Prosecution ought to have obtained previous sanction – Conviction based upon such a person who is unworthy of credit, cannot be sustained – There cannot be two different yardsticks, one relating to money received by partnership firm and another relating to money realized by BHEL – A suspicion cannot be thrown solely on the basis of person to whom payments were made – Conviction of A-1 for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, Section 471 read with Section 468 and Section 193 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act cannot be sustained – Finding recorded by Trial Court and High Court as though A-7 committed forgery and cheating by making applications for issue of demand drafts in names of bogus firms is wholly unsustainable – Appellants acquitted of all the charges. (Paras 29, 35, 47, 95, 100, 103, 115, 137 and 139)

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 306 and 307 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 5 – Tender of pardon to accomplice – Two tests to be satisfied before accepting evidence of an approver – First, approver is a reliable witness and second, his statement should be corroborated with sufficient evidence – In cases where a Special Court itself is competent to take cognizance and also empowered to grant pardon, procedure under Section 306 of Code gets by-passed – When Special Court chooses to take cognizance, question of approver being examined as a witness in Court of Magistrate as required by Section 306 (4)(a) does not arise – There was no violation of procedure prescribed by Section 306(4)(a) of Code in present case. (Paras 74, 76, 79 and 83)

(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 133 and Illustration (b) to Section 114 – Competent witness – An accomplice is a competent witness – Conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds upon uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice – However, an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars. (Para 84)

(E) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 73 – Comparison of signatures/ handwritings – For invoking Section 73, there must first have been some signature or writing admitted or proved to satisfaction of Court, to have been written or made by that person – Section 73 empowers Court also to direct any person present in Court to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling Court to compare words or figures. (Para 131)

Facts of the case:

These three criminal appeals arise out of a common Judgment passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court confirming conviction of appellants herein for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Findings of Court:

There was no signature or writing available before High Court, which had been admitted or proved to satisfaction of Court to have been written or made. High Court did not also direct A-7 to write any words or figures for the purpose of enabling a comparison. Without following procedure so prescribed in Section 73, High Court invented a novel procedure, to uphold conviction handed over by Trial Court through a wrong reasoning.

Result : Appeals allowed. Appellants acquitted.