Court says unnecessary evidence prolongs corruption prosecutions; rules that Section 13(1)(d) conviction cannot stand without pecuniary advantage
Supreme Court Raises Concern Over Lengthy Corruption Prosecutions
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (08.09.2026) raised concern over delays in Supreme Court corruption cases and other corruption prosecutions. The Court said prosecutors often present voluminous evidence that has little relevance to the allegations against an accused public servant.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vinod K Chandran made the observations while acquitting a former government store in-charge. The case arose from allegedly false medicine bills dating back to 1993. The courts had convicted him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution examined more than 62 witnesses. However, the Supreme Court found that most of the evidence did not address the central issue in the case.
The bench observed:
“We cannot but notice that in corruption cases voluminous evidence is led, which is often intimidating to the Court, especially since many aspects attempted to be led in evidence are way off the mark, in providing a substantiation of the allegation, or to bring home the guilt of the accused-public servant.”
High Court Had Upheld PC Act Conviction
The appellant challenged a Gauhati High Court judgment before the Supreme Court. The High Court had upheld his conviction under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It had read those provisions with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Section 120B of the IPC now corresponds to Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
However, the High Court acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. That provision now corresponds to Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The appellant then approached the Supreme Court and challenged the remaining conviction.
Case Involved Allegedly False Medicine Bills
The Veterinary Department of Assam filed the complaint that led to the proceedings. It alleged a loss of Rs 5,97,200 through false bills for medicines that suppliers never actually delivered. The complaint also alleged that payments went to a fictitious firm.
Authorities chargesheeted seven people in the case. The trial court convicted four and acquitted three.
The matter later reached the Gauhati High Court. The High Court acquitted the accountant. However, it upheld the convictions of the store in-charge and storekeeper under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The store in-charge subsequently became the appellant before the Supreme Court.
Pecuniary Advantage Becomes Key Legal Question
The Supreme Court said the appeal turned on a narrow question. It examined whether the conviction under Section 13(1)(d), read with Section 120B, could survive when the appellant had obtained no pecuniary advantage.
The bench examined the requirements of Section 13(1)(d). It noted that the provision requires a public servant to obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or another person.
The provision covers an advantage obtained through corrupt or illegal means or through abuse of official position. It also covers conduct without public interest.
The Court held:
“without a pecuniary advantage, there could be no conviction under Section 13(1)(d), which the High Court has categorically found, does not exist in the present case.”
The Supreme Court therefore found that the case lacked an essential requirement for conviction under Section 13(1)(d).
CBI Did Not Challenge Acquittal on IPC Offences
The Supreme Court also considered whether the evidence could support offences under the IPC. The bench said the evidence, if at all, could have supported those charges. It found that the High Court had failed to appreciate this aspect.
However, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI/respondent) did not challenge the High Court’s decision to acquit the appellant of the IPC offences.
The Supreme Court therefore gave the appellant the benefit of that lapse.
High Court Referred to Only Nine of 62 Witnesses
The bench also scrutinised the volume of evidence that the prosecution produced.
The prosecution examined 62 witnesses. However, the High Court referred to only nine of them while deciding the case.
The Supreme Court observed:
“In this case the prosecution has examined 62 witnesses, obviously to no avail, since the High Court refers to only 9 of such witnesses; 8 being the in-charge of the Veterinary Dispensaries in the various parts of the State, at the relevant period to prove the supply of medicines having not been effected, as per the challans issued and bills passed. The one other witness referred to is the actual owner of the firm,who was the supplier, who appeared and denied receipt of any money or even the supply of medicines.”
Eight witnesses had served as in-charge of Veterinary Dispensaries across different parts of Assam. Their testimony concerned the alleged failure to supply medicines despite the issuance of challans and approval of bills.
The ninth witness was the actual owner of the supplier firm. He denied receiving any money and also denied supplying the medicines.
Court Questions Lack of Money-Trail Investigation
The Supreme Court also pointed to a significant gap in the investigation. Investigators had not traced the money after the department disbursed the funds.
The bench then addressed delays that frequently affect corruption prosecutions. It said excessive evidence can prolong proceedings when much of that material proves unnecessary or irrelevant. The observation also highlights the need for focused evidence in Supreme Court corruption cases.
The Court observed:
“We do not see any investigation having been taken to find out the money trail when the amounts were so disbursed from the department. Prosecution in corruption cases have a history of long pendency; especially because of the voluminous evidence led, which often is unnecessary and as we noticed, mostly irrelevant. Be that as it may, in the present case, we find absolutely no reason to uphold the conviction under the provision in which the High Court has chosen to convict the appellant.”
Supreme Court Acquits Former Store In-Charge
The Supreme Court ultimately found no reason to sustain the appellant’s conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The bench acquitted the former store in-charge of the charges that the Gauhati High Court had upheld. It also directed his release.
