SUBASH PARBAT SONVANE versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 359 · Decided: 24-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

;. 
... 
.,._ 
SUBASH PARBAT SONVANE 
A 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
APRIL 24, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH, BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
~ 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 13(J)(d)-Criminal 
~ 
misconduct by a public servant-Conviction-Necessary ingredients-Evidence 
on record to establish that accused by corrupt or illegal means obtained for c 
himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage-On 
facts courts below convicting accused for criminal misconduct-On appeal 
held, from the evidence on record ii cannot be inferred that accused obtained 
any amount by corrupt or illegal means-Mere acceptance of money thus, not 
sufficient to convict the accused-Order of Courts below set aside. 
D 
Appellant-accused was convicted under Sections 7 13(1)(d) and 13(2) 
.. 
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hy the trial court. Aggrieved, 
.. 
appellant-accused filed appeal before High Court which was dismissed . 
In appeal be!ore this Court appellant submitted that the order passed 
by High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section E 
13(1)(d)(i) is illegal and erroneous since the prosecution must establish that 
by corrupt and illegal means accused has obtained for himself or for any other 
person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage and also there is no 
evidence on record that appellant 'obtained' any amount by corrupt or illegal 
means. 
F 
_.,. 
... 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Order of High Court convicting the appellant for the offence 
punishable under Section 13(1 )( d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 
.. 
is set aside. However, appellant's conviction under Section 7 is upheld since 
in view of the evidence on record conviction cannot be assailed in any manner. G 
[361-C; 364-G) 
-;.. 
2.1. Mere acceptance of money without there being any other evidence 
would not be sufficient for convicting the accused under Section 13(l)(d)(i) 
of the Act. [361-F-G) 
359 
H 
360 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
2.2. In Sections 7 and 13(1)(a) and (b) of the Act the Legislature has 
specifically used the words 'accepts' or 'obtains'. However in Section 13(1)(d) 
it has omitted the word 'accepts' and has emphasized the word 'obtains'. 
Further for convicting the person under Section 13(1) (d), there must be 
evidence on record that accused 'obtained' for himself or for any other person 
B any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by either corrupt or illegal means 
or by abusing his position as a public servant or he obtained for any person 
any valua1ble thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest 
(362-B-D] 
2.3. In the instant case, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses 
C it cannot be inferred that accused demanded any amount from the 
complainant or that he had obtained the same. It is apparent that the trial 
court and the High Court misread the evidence of prosecution witness and 
held that there was demand by the accused and the amount was paid to him 
by the co_mplainant thus it was unreasonable to hold that accused demanded 
money from the complainant (364-E, F] 
D 
Ram Krishan and Anr. v. The State of Delhi, (1956] SCR 183; MW 
Mohinddin v. State of Maharashtra, (1995) 3 SCC 567 and C.K Damodarafi? 
Nair/v. Govt. of India, [1997) 9 SCC 477, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
E 546 of 2002. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31. 7.2001 of the Gujarat High 
Court in Crl. A. No. 881 of 1997. 
Mahendra Anand, Raj iv Mehta and Ms. Anita Pandey for the Appellant. 
S.K. Dholakia, Ms. Hemantika and Ms. Aruna Gupta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHAH, J. Leave granted. 
Appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, City Civil Court, 
G Ahmedabad by judgment and order dated 10.9.1997 for the offence punishable 
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred 
to as "the Act") and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months 
and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default of payment of which to further 
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. He was also convicted for the 
H offence punishable under Sections 13(l)(d) and 13(2) of the Act and was 
' .... 
.... 
·{ 
~ 
~ 
• 
~ 
--.; 
-I, 
• 
- ._ 
SUBASHPARBATSONVANEv. STATEOFGUJARAT[SHAH,J.] 
361 
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of 
Rs. 500, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 

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