LexA. SLVAPRAKASH versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016) 4 S.C.R. 429
A. SlVAPRAKASH
v.
STATE OF KERALA
(Criminal Appeal No. 131 of2007)
MAY JO, 2016
[A.K. SIKRI AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(2) rlw s. JJ(l){d) -
Proceedings under - Alleging that appellant-accused as a public
servant issued a fake 'stage certificate' dated 9. 6.199 2 in respect
of contract awarded to A-3, on tl?e basis whereof payment to the
extent of 50% of the contract value was received by A-3 - Conviction
by courts below - On appeal, held: The work contract awarded to
A-3 was under 'Jawahar Rojgar Yojana' - As per Circular dated
23.4.1991, it was permissible for the Panchayat to release 50% of
the estimated cost in advance to the contractor on the starting of
the project - Thus, Panchayat was empowered to release 50% even
without the letter dated 9. 6.1992 - There is no causal connection
between the release of payment to A-3 and the letter dated 9.6.1992
- The prosecution has sought to cover the case of the appellant-
accused under clause (ii) of s. l 3(l){d) - However, it failed to bring
its case within the fold of clause (ii) - Thus, the prosecution failed
to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction of
appellant-accused set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The work contract awarded to A-3 were under
Jawahar Rojgar Yojana (JRY). The Commissioner, Village
Development had issued Circular No. 14514/J.R.Y. 1191/C.R.D.
dated 23.04.1991 which prescribes the procedure for
implementation of JRY and contains certain suggestions. Para 2
thereof mentions about the manner in which 50% of the advance
can be released by the Panchayat. [Para 12] [435-A-C]
1.2 Ex.P/16(a) which is dated 09.06.1992 ('Stage
Certificate")shows that this letter was written on the request of
Panchayat President. Prior to the writing of this letter, A-3 had
already released three payments of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and
Rs. 7,000/-. Thus, it is nobody's case that those payments were
4"29
.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
430
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 4 S.C.R.
made to A-3 on the basis of any 'stage certificate' or any such
letter issued by the appellant. Thus, much before the issuance of
Ex.P/16(a), A-3 was given the payment of Rs.82,000/-. As per
circular dated 23.04.1991, payment could not be made without
starting a project/work. It means that as per Pa~chayat itself, A-
3 had started work which resulted in the aforesaid payment. Once
the work is started, Panchayat was empowered to release advance
to the extent of 50% of the estimated cost, i.e. up to Rs. 2 lakhs.
Thus, Panchayat could have made further payment of
Rs.1,18,000/- even without Ex.P/16(a). Payment of Rs.1 lakh
was made on 09.06.1992, which was well within defined limits.
r~ara 15] r436-D-FJ
1.3 There is no causal connection between release of
payment to A-3 and letter Ex.P/16(a). Ex.P/16(a) was issued on
the request of Panchayat President. It mentions that "valuation
cost" of the said project is 25%. This letter never stated that A-
3 had 'completed' 25% work. The cost which was mentioned by
the appellant included the cost of material as well, which was
brought on site by A-3. Ex. P/16(a) was wrongly termed as the
stage certificate. The High Court wrongly proceeded on the basis
that advance payment could be given only on installment basis
depending upon the percentage of the work completed. [Para
16) (436-G-H; 437-AJ
2.1 The prosecution has sought to cover the case of the
appellant under sub-clause (ii) and not under sub-clause (i) and
sub-clause (iii) of s.13(1)( d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Insofar as sub-clause (ii) is concerned, it stipulates that a public
servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if
he, by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself
or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
Thus, the ingredients which will be required to be proved are:
(l)The public servant has abused his position. (2) By abusing
that position, he has obtained for himself or for any other person
any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. [Para 17) [437-E-F]
2.2 It was not even the case set up by the prosecution that
appellant had taken that money from some person and had
obtained any pecuniary advantage thereby. It was the obligation
of the prosecution to satisfy the aforesaid mandatory ingredients
A. SIVAPRAKASH v. STATE OF KERALA
which could implExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.