In order to establish a prima facie case of abuse of office, the prosecution must show that the public servant obtained a pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means.

1. - Petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 read with 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 20.8.2016 whereby charges were framed against the petitioner by Special Judge in F.I.R. No. 143 dated 11.4.2000 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sawaimadhopur, District Sawaimadhopur and the application for discharging the petition was dismissed.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely involved in this case. In fact there was no evidence against the petitioner qua commission of offence in question. Petitioner had not misused his power nor had given any undue benefit to himself or anybody else. In support of his argument learned Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State (Through CBI), (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 205 wherein, it was held as under:

"Adverting to the facts of the present case it has already been noticed that the only allegation against the appellant is that he had prevailed upon RITES and IRCON to take the four employees in question on "deputation" for the sole purpose of sending them to London in connection with the medical treatment of the appellant. It is also alleged that neither RITES nor IRCON had any pending business in London and that none of the four persons had not performed any duty pertaining to RITES or IRCON while they were in London; yet the to and fro air fare of all the four persons was paid by the above two Public Sector Undertakings. On the said basis it has been alleged that the accused appellant had abused his office and caused pecuniary loss to the two Public Sector Undertakings by arranging the visits of the four persons in question to London without any public interest. This, in essence, is the case against the accused-appellant.

A fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence with regard to the liability of an accused which may have application to the present case is to be found in the work "Criminal Law" by K.D. Gaur. The relevant passage from the above work may be extracted below:

"Criminal guilt would attach to a man for violations of criminal law. However, the rule is not absolute and is subject to limitations indicated in the Latin maxim, act us non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea It signifies that their can be no crime without a guilty mind. To make a person criminally accountable it must be proved that an act, which is forbidden by law, has been caused by his conduct, and that the conduct was accompanied by a legally blameworthy attitude of mind. Thus, there are two components of every crime, a physical element and a mental element, usually called act us reus and mens rea respectively."

It has already been noticed that the appellant besides working as the Minister of Railways was the Head of the two Public Sector Undertakings in question at the relevant time. It also appears from the materials on record that the four persons while in London had assisted the appellant in performing certain tasks connected with the discharge of duties as a Minister. It is difficult to visualise as to how in the light of the above facts, demonstrated by the materials revealed in the course of investigation, the appellant can be construed to have adopted corrupt or illegal means or to have abused his position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage either for himself or for any of the aforesaid four persons. If the statements of the witnesses examined under Section 161 show that the aforesaid four persons had performed certain tasks to assist the Minister in the discharge of his public duties, however insignificant such tasks may have been, no question of obtaining any pecuniary advantage by any corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of the position of the appellant as a public servant can arise. As a Minister it was for the appellant to decide on the number and identity of the officials and supporting staff who s