R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 436 · Decided: 28-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
FEBRUARY 28, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRl.JCSH KUMAR, JJ. ] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Section 5(2) read with 5(J)(d)-
E/ectricity (Supply) Act, 19481 Kera/a State Electricity Board Rules, 1957-
C Section 43/Rule 68-Al/egation that- officials illegally selling electricity to a 
company-Conviction-High Court upholding the same-Justification of-Held, 
conviction not justified since sale negotiated between two State Governments 
thus, Section 43 and Rule 68 not violated-Inference of criminal liability 
could not be drawn for not executing an agreement in writing-Act not 
amounting to 'causing to obtain' valuable thing to company resulting in 
D pecuniary advantage as well to the company-Mens rea and intention totally 
lacking, thus facts leading to charges not proved-Also sale during the period 
of crisis not objected to and prosecution failing to prove sale of electricity by 
·the State to the company or the State or officials having caused profit to the 
company. 
E 
According to the prosecution, appellant No.I-Minister for Electricity, 
Government of Kerala and appellant No.2-Technical Member/Chairman 
of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) illegally sold 1;22,41,440 units 
of electricity to company G outside the State without sanction of the State 
Government which amounted to causing to obtain valuable thing to 
company G and also resulting in pecuniary advantage. Appellants were 
F convicted and sentenced under Section 5(2) read with Section S(l)(d) of 
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. High Court upheld the order. 
Hence the present appeals. 
Appellants contended that the ingredient of the offence under section 
G S(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act obtaining anycvaluable thing 
or pecuniary advantage for himself or ·for any other person is not there; 
and that if some profit has been caused to company G by lowering of the 
price by State of Karnataka/KEB it is not proximate or .direct cause of 
anything done by Al and A2. 
H 
Respondents contended that there is no document or formail order 
436 
'• 
R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI v. STATE 
437 
of consent of State Government for arrangement of supply of electricity; A 
that the supply of electricity was made without any agreement in writing 
or any other record of supplies; and that by supply of electrical energy to 
company G by KSEB in definite and earmarked quantity, Al and A2 
caused company G to obtain valuable thing namely, electricity which also 
resulted in an advantage to company G. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The agreement of sale and supply of electricity from 
Kerala to Karnataka has been negotiated at the higher level, at the level 
B 
of the two State Governments through thei~ respective Ministers. The 
Minister for Power, State of Karnataka had approached the Power C 
Minister of the State of Kerala for exploring possibility of supply of 
electricity to the State of Karnataka which was then facing acute deficit 
of electric energy. The Chairman of the Electricity Boards of the two States 
have also been present during the negotiations along with Secretary, 
Power, Kerala Government. It was a transaction between State of D 
Karnataka/KEB and State of Kerala/KSEB. Thus there was no occasion 
of any document being there showing consent of Government of Kerala 
for supply of energy to company G. The statement of the Chairman of 
KSEB that there was no sanction of the Government of Kerala to supply 
power to company G has no material bearing or relevance. Therefore, 
there is no violation of Section 43 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 E 
and Rule 68 of Kerala State Electricity Board Rules, 1957. The supply of 
electricity made under the arrangement arrived at on negotiations entered 
into between two States does not need any prior constent and thus section 
43 or under Rule 68 are not attracted. (457-H; 458-A-DI 
1.2. The fact that arrangement entered into was not reduced into an 
agreement in writing, lost relevance for the purposes of the instant case 
since the same having been acted upon and the electricity having been 
supplied to the State of Karnataka/KEB for which there is no complaint 
that State of Kerala/KSEB has not received the agreed price. However, 
F 
the requirement or necessity to execute an agreement in writing for any G 
contract entered into for and on behalf of State or such bodies like KSEB 
is not undermined but such omission, in the facts 

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