V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN versus R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 2 S.C.R. 762 · Decided: 10-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 2 S.C.R. 762 
V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN 
V. 
R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 350 of 2006) 
FEBRUARY 10, 2011 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
c 
Appeal against acquittal -Jurisdiction of appellate court 
-Held: The Code puts no limitation on exercise of powers of 
appellate court either on questions of fact or of law -However, 
an appellate court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, 
there is double presumption in favour of accused -
0 Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 136. 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950 : 
Article 136 -Appeal by way of special leave - Filed by 
non-complainant/non party -Maintainability of -Conviction by 
E trial court of a Minister and higher officials of State Electricity 
Board -For entering into conspiracy and awarding contract to 
accused-contractor at exorbitant rates causing huge loss to 
Board -Acquittal by High Court - Appeal by erstwhile leader 
of opposition party -Held: In the instant case, certain special 
F features exist -State has not filed appeal -Taking note of the 
importance of the issue, appellant had earlier approached the 
Supreme Court when State wanted to close the prosecution 
against all the accused including the Minister, and accepting 
appellant's claim Special Judge was allowed to proceed in the 
G case, which culminated in conviction of the accused by the 
Special Court -No objection as to locus of the appellant was 
raised on the earlier occasion -In view of the special 
circumstances, the instant appeal by the appellant against 
H 
762 
V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN v. R. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI 763 
& ORS. 
order of acquittal passed by the High Court is maintainable 
A 
, -Locus standi. 
PENAL CODE, 1860 : 
ss. 120-B and 409, and ss. 5(1)(C) and 5(2) of Prevention 
of Corruption Act read withs. 120-B /PC -Contract awarded 
B 
by State Electricity Board to accused-contractor on exorbitant 
rates -Member of the Board, Member of Consultative Council 
of the Board, Minister for Electricity in the State Government, 
the contractor along with others prosecuted -Death of 
contractor and another accused -Conviction by trial court of C 
the Member of the Board, Member of its Consultative Council 
and the Minister -Acquittal by High Court -Held : The Board 
is empowered with the authority to award contracts, but being 
a Public Undertaking it is not expected to accept tenders at 
exorbitant rates causing loss to the Board -Except on policy D 
matters the State Government had no role to play in the affairs 
of the Board -The evidence clearly shows that the Minister 
concerned used to interfere in awarding contracts of the Board 
' and the accused-contractor had been chosen in advance by 
him -The evidence indicates that the conspiracy to award the 
E 
work to the accused-contractor at exorbitant rates originated 
even prior to submission of tenders -Special Court has rightly 
concluded that a criminal conspiracy was hatched out at the 
instance of the Minister concerned and the Member of the 
Consultative Council -Prosecution has established against 
F 
the three accused-appellants that the contract was awarded 
to the accused-contractor at and exorbitant rates -Besides the 
accused-contractor was favoured with special conditions in the 
contract causing further loss to the Board -
There were 
procedural irregularities and omissions in dealing with the 
G 
tenders and hasty steps were taken in awarding the contract 
in favour of the accused-contractor- Special Court accepting 
the prosecution case, rightly convicted the accused -High 
Court committed grave error in acquitting the accused without 
adverting to reliable and acceptable evidence adduced by H 
764 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 
A prosecution -Judgment of High Court set aside and 
conviction of all the three accused as recorded by Special 
Court upheld -However, keeping in view the facts and 
circumstances of the case, and the fact that the accused have 
undergone agony of the proceedings for nearly two decades, 
B accused sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year 
with fine of Rs. 10, 0001- each - Kera/a State Electricity Board 
Tender Regulations -Regulation 25 (C). 
ADMINSTRA TION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE : 
C 
Disposal of cases relating to corruption by public servants 
-Held: When a matter of this nature is entrusted to a Special 
Court or a regular court, such trials should be given priority 
and concluded within a reasonable time -High

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