VASANT RAO GUHE versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2017] 8 S.C.R. 570 · Decided: 09-08-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 570 
V ASANT RAO GUHE 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of2017) 
AUGUST09,2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY AND 
A.M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.I 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 
s.13(1)(e) rlw. s.13(2) - Concurrent conviction under - If 
justified- Held: A public servant charged of criminal misconduct 
has to be proved by the prosecution to be in possession of pecuniary 
resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of 
income, at any time during the period of his office - To succeed in 
D a criminal trial, the prosecution has to pitch its case beyond all 
reasonable doubt and lodge it in the realm of "must be true" 
category and not in the domain of "may be true" -
However, in the 
instant case the prosecution failed to prove the charge of criminal 
misconduct against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt -
E He is thus entitled to benefit of doubt - Further. on facts, the charge 
for which the appellant was finally convicted was different from the 
one with which he was arraigned at the initiation of the trial - This 
is opposed to the fundamental percepts of a criminal prosecution -
Thus, appellants conviction and sentence is set aside. 
F 
s.13 - Burden of proof - Held: The primary burden to bring 
G 
H 
home the charge of criminal misconduct is on the prosecution to 
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant either 
himself or through anyone else had at any time, during the period 
of his office, been in possession of pecuniary resources or property 
disproportionate to his known sources of income - It is only on 'the 
discharge of such burden by the prosecution, if the public servant 
fails to satisfactorily account for the same, he would be in law held 
guilty of such offence - If prosecution fails to discharge such burden, 
he would not be required in law to offer any explanation to 
satisfactorily account therefor. 
570 
VASANT RAO GUHE v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
571 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1.1 On the two major heads of income i.e. pay and 
agricultural earnings, the Trial Court not only of its own embarked 
on an inquiry to ascertain and compute the figures, it wholly 
resorted to inferences in calculating the pay for the periods 
omitted by the prosecution as well as in fixing 60% expenditure B 
from pay towards household needs. Its assessment of agricult~ral 
income of the appellant, to say the least, was also wholly 
presumptive in absence of any basis whatsoever in support 
thereof. The figures ultimately arrived at by the Trial Court, 
were thus patently different from those mentioned in the charge 
C 
framed against the appellant and on which he was put on trial. In 
other words, the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on a 
charge different from the one framed against him and that too on 
the basis of calculations made by it by applying inferences and 
guess works. The High Court also fell in error in the lines similar 
to that of the Trial Court. [Paras 12 and 14) [577-A-B, C-D; 578-
D 
BJ 
1.2 Admittedly, having regard to the ultimate figures as 
calculated by the Courts below, the charge has undergone a 
metamorphosis. This assumes immense significance in view of 
the fact that no fresh charge had been framed on the allegations 
E 
'for which the appellant was eventually convicted and sentenced. 
Any adverse inference prejudicial to the appellant was thus not 
available in law, he not having been confronted with the altered 
imputations. To reiterate, the charge for which the appellant was 
finally convicted wore a new complexion different from the one 
with which he had been arraigned at the initiation of the trial. The 
appellant thus for all practical purposes was subjected to a trial 
involving fleeting frames of accusations of which he was denied 
prior notice. This is clearly opposed to the fundamental precepts 
F 
of a criminal prosecution. [Para 17) [579-B-C] 
1.3 Apart therefrom, both the Courts below indulged in G 
voluntary exercises to quantify the pay of the appellant for the 
periods excluded by the prosecution as well as his agricultural 
income an_d that too premised on presumptions with regard to 
his possible expenditures/investments and his share in the 
agricultural receipts. Having regard to the nature of the charge H 
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 8 S.C.R. 
A cast on the appellant and the inflexible burden on the prosecution 
to unfailingly prove all the ingredients consti

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