A. JAYARAM AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH BY CBI

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 13-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A. JA YARAM AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH BY CBI 
JULY 13, 1995 
[G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Indian .Penal Code, 
186~Section 420A-Convictions for offences 
under-Appeal against-Appreciation of evidence--Fertiliser scandal in 
transporting imported fertilisers from ports of arrival to government 
godowns--Prosecution case that fertilisers imported not delivered-Cir-
cumstantial evidence--Facts established must rnle out any likelihood of in-
nocence of accused-Want of convicing and unimpeachable evidence against 
government officials-Govemment officials acquitted on benefit of doubt-Or-
ders of conviction against dealers held legally sustainable. 
Evidence Act, 1872-Section :r-circumstantial evidence-conviction 
based on-Facts established must mle out any likelihood .of innocence of 
accused. 
Criminal proceedings instituted against the appellants, being the 
officers of the State Government and dealers of fertilizers, related to an 
alleged scandal of transporting imported fertilizers from the ports of 
arrival to different destinations. Prosecution case that large scale fraud 
had been committed by a large number of government officials in con-
spiracy with the dealers in fertilizers who were entrusted to take the 
fertilizers from the port to various government godowns as such fertilizers 
had not been transported to the destination but the goods were sold at 
some intermediate places and the dealers made a false claim of transpor-
tation charges and A3 who was the Agricultural Assistant Officer and 
consignee of the goods made a false entry in the stock register to the effect 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
that the fertilizers were received at the place of destination and on the 
basis of certificate used by A3 since endorsed by A.23, the District Agricul-
G 
tural Officer about actual transportation of the fertilizers through shortest 
route, the claim of the dealer was allowed by the Government, there being 
conspiracy and connivance between A-2, A-3 and A-1 to defraud the 
Government. The State police was entrusted with the enquiry. As the 
enquiry appearing to be tardy, the CBI made enquiries and charge sheets H 
75 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
were filed. The Special Judge for Fertilizers and charge sheets were filed. 
B 
The Special Judge for Fertilizers Transport Cases (AP) acquitted all the 
accused in the criminal cases instituted against the officers and dealers 
but on appeal, the High Court reversed the orders of acquittal and 
convicted all the appellants u/s 120B r/ws 420 and 477-A Indian Penal Code 
and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100. The Government oflicials were 
further convicted u/s 5(2) r/ws 5(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. 
These appeals had been filed against the judgments of conviction. 
The appellants contended that although an appellate court has 
jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of fact and reverse such finding 
C 
on proper appreciation of evidence adduced in the trial, the High Court 
had reversed the decisions of the trial court contrary to the well estab-
lished principles justifying such interference; that the prosecution having 
pleaded an excuse for not leading better evidence to establish all the 
ingredients of the offence on account of inordinate delay in making proper 
D investigation and filing the charge sheet by contending that adverse in-
ference should be drawn against the accused but such contention being 
against all cannons of criminal jurisprudence should not have been ac-
cepted by the court as it was the obligation of the prosecution to lead 
convincing and unimpeachable evidence to prove the charges levelled 
E 
F 
against the accused and failure of the prosecution to establish such charge 
for any reason whatsoever could not but enure to the benefit of the accused 
particularly when the delay in investigating the case and filing cha.rgesheet 
was not attributable to the accused; that the conviction sought to be based 
on circumstantial evidence, there was no convincing and unimpeachable 
evidence which unerringly pointed out to the guilt of the accused and in 
the facts of the case, no conclusion other than complicity of the accused 
for the offence charged, was possible and hence conviction of the appel-
lants on probability, surmise or conjecture was not warranted; that the 
appellants having no special knowledge as to what route had been actually 
followed by the dealer or transporter in bringing th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.