Conviction for corruption and conspiracy cannot rest on unpro

The C.B.I. alleged that Shekhar Prasad, Station Engineer at the Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Dhanbad, conspired with firms including Techno Services, whose proprietor was his brother, Satyendra Prasad Sinha, to obtain payments on false bills for hired diesel generator sets at several TV Relay Centres during 1994–1998.

The trial court convicted Shekhar Prasad under Sections 420 and 120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; it convicted Satyendra Prasad Sinha under Sections 420, 120B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

Both appealed, challenging the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence, including proof that the generators were not installed or that the bills were forged.

1. Whether the convictions and sentences were legally sustainable on the evidence presented, or whether the impugned judgment disclosed an error requiring appellate interference.

2. Whether the prosecution proved that the bills were false or forged and that the appellants had dishonestly conspired to obtain payments or cause wrongful loss.

The Court considered Section 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as applicable before the 2018 amendment: criminal misconduct required proof that a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position, obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or another.

It also set out the relevant requirements of Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, concerning criminal conspiracy, cheating and dishonest inducement, forgery, forgery for cheating, and knowingly using a forged document as genuine.

The Court stated that the prosecution had to establish the public servant’s abuse of office, the creation or use of false documents resulting in a pecuniary consequence, and the requisite knowledge or belief concerning forged documents.

The Court found that prosecution evidence acknowledged erratic electricity supply and a need for additional generators, while witnesses gave evidence supporting the use of hired generators and the maintenance of records.

It considered the evidence insufficient to prove that the relevant bills were forged or that the generators had not been installed; it also noted the absence of a complaint from Doordarshan alleging misappropriation and that the firms were not sent up for trial.

In the Court’s view, the fact that Satyendra Prasad Sinha was Shekhar Prasad’s brother, without substantial evidence of false billing or abuse of official position, did not establish conspiracy or the other offences.

It set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, acquitted both appellants, allowed both appeals, and discharged them and their sureties from their bail-bond liabilities.