Madhya Pradesh High Court
Radheshyam Gupta (R S Gupta) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2022
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
Judgment referred for AFR by Hon'ble Shri Justice
Rohit Arva & Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh
Phadke, Judges, High Court of M.P. Bench at Gwalior.
i |Case No. t- Crk. No. 1666/2021
2 |Parties Name :- Radheshyarn Gupta (R.S.Gupta) Vs.
State of M.P. Through SPE
3 |Date of Judgment :- 06/04/2022
4 |Bench constituted of <- Honble Shri Justice Rohit
Arya & Hon'ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
5 |Order delivered by :- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Arya
6 |Whether approved for reporting :- Yes
? |Name of counsel for the parties :-
Shri R.K.Sharma,Senior Advocate with Shri
V.K. Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant
Shri Sushant Tiwari, Special Public Prosecutor for
Special Police Establishment Lokaukt, Gwalior
8 |Law laid down :- The words "pecuniary resources"
as used in Explanation 1 of S.i3¢i}(b) of the Act
explained as "a source or generation of maney &
wealth" and "computable wealth', In other words
"pecuniary resources" mean source of flow or money
or liquid assets in existence ~ which is in conformity
contextually WEA the words "property
disproportionate" (in existence}, as used in
Explanation 1 appended to S.13(1){b) of the Act.
{2} Explanation 1, as appended to $.13(1)}(b) of the
Act provides that a person shall be presumed to have
intentionally enriched himself illicitly if he is in
possession of pecuniary resources or property
disproportionate to his known sources of income,
which the public servant could not satisfactorily
account for,
9 |Significant Paragraph number :-11
: Criminal Revision No.1666/2021
Radbeshoan Gupta (RS. Gupta) Ws. State of MLB |
BENCH AT GWALIOR
Criminal Revision No.1666/2021
Radheshyam Gupta (RS. Gupta} APPELLANT
Versus
State of MLP. through
Special Police Establishment . RESPONDENT
CORAM :
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Arya &
Han'ble Shri Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
Shri R.A. Sharma, learned Senior counsel with Shn VR. Agarwal,
learned counsel for the petianer.
Shri Sushant Tiwari, learned Special Pablic Prosecutor for the Special
Pohee Establishment Lokayukt, Gwalior.
Whether approved far reporting: Yes
AAU ae a A a ee ee a a
ORDER
(06/04/2022 } This revision petition under section 397 read with 401 af Cr. is directed against the order dated 30.1.2021 framing charges against the petitioner. For ready reference three charges framed are } 2 ME * ;
i te of ig a S ¥.
fa} BF No. 1666/2021 TLD * oe, Sian * al Rev pla (AS. € ry an € Tn ey Cr «s ee * > (2 and g ke og ray age bey ere re "5 ie Br eS BAG OEP v, S e é ag fe bees to ee ni i "aie me he Ln ye geet a . a ed Cig fanaa tefnee a ¥ ee S _ 'od ve eee on re Seal ei Seber te ae a ns a . re re Soe
20. eB Bye mee EY oe 7 : if
a) ase cee hanes Pon on a Fe _ ie ao = a cs to pe fe & Roos a.
ad & ee ee EE be YE ee a ie mm eS aaa ly ihe AG ea ie ae * dis "Ke ta oe Boe eo we _ ib * i o es , eo ae ure oe rp. 4 we Cao ye ie Ge oe x sa ot oo ye f oe. At "HE he oF re me ES on , Er Phe to oe bg ue aN cay, - frd --
ee Le, oe o ¢ fe on ia it Ly bee o ss bey he oe » ae ca fa ree . ie eee uy br : ae e ' 5 4 fra * pei ws a oa ny oD & . " ne Hee a bee ee: eS a foe ied oo a ag fe m3 zr ee ie 83 7 'ee BS o is en o ere ad be nn oe ie 2 "
7 Vat fe ca ae poe ~ the "fees 2 em Pes = = ee a ce a) Be, o ned a aoe : pe Fem ES Lae. * sch there Te boat en - <.
* ve an ses "e --
: ks ee " 4% Jie 2 "or At | OES on hes AS "Gy a j ie Fad bee eee , 2 on --
* i . ty 4 . "fe oe. , e . £ & EB & 8 & F & jo a SM ie PR a # ce eee ta ae a Me o see on ha or oo we nee ee wx? " ag ot ae eM ge me OR _. 4 ie me Ie = te 4 re eS rs 2 fe ae 4, Bor yo mar or m 2 pe ree ie wee.$ % as Hane wine as c if -- we ce oa 3 ree E Be ae oe eS a 4g ee Kooan AB Re ans ha he pee ie ee Sy (ae we OB a fe Radheshy { se t as tide The (2) 3: Criminal Revision No. 1666/2021 (Radheshvam Gupta (RS. Gupta) Ws. State of MP } relevant for disposal of the revision petition are in narrow compass. The petitioner while serving on the post af Incharge Principal of Madhya Pradesh Govt. Girls Higher Secondary School Karera, District Shivpuri during the period 13.8.2018 to 168.2018 had allseedly demanded an amount of Rs.4.000/- Gllegal gratification) for release of payment of the amount under sanctioned bill after finalization of difference of arrears af revised pension from 1976 to 2015 and pensionary benefits payable to the complainant.
(3) The petitioner is alleged to have been caught red handed while secepting the aforesaid illegal gratification. Afer compistion of investigation, final report have been submitted to the Court of competent jurisdiction. Thereafter the instant order framing charge have been passed.
(4) Shri R.R. Sharma, learned Sentor Counsel for the petitioner while taking exception to the impugned order submits that alorequoted three charges have been framed making the petitioner hlakis for offences under section 7 (a), 7 (b), 13 (1) (b) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. According to him, the singular charge of acceptance of Rs 4000/- as Uegal gratification has been splitted into three charges. Charges at the most may be cuvered within the scope of section 7 (a) and 7 (b} of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Amended) Act, 2018. Nevertheless, the : 4: Criminal Revision No. 1666/2021 (Radheshvam Gupta (RS. Gupta) Ws. State of MP } sustainability whereof shall be subject to evidence placed on record during trial. in any case the charge so framed cannot be made punishable for offence under section 13 (1) (b) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption CAmendment) Act, 2018. While elaborating his submissions, learned caunsel has drawn attention of this Court to the provisions af amended section [3 (1b) and Explanation | and I appended thereto. For ready reference, the said acections are quoted below:
"13. Criminal misconduct by a pabhe servant. - (1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct -
(6) if he intentionally enriches himself ihieitly dering the period of his office.
Explanation |. - A person shall be presumed te have intentionally enriched himself dheitly if he or any person on his behalf, is im possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office, been im possession of pecnalary resources oF property disproportionate to his known sources of incame which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for, Explanation 2. - The expression "known sources of income" imeans income received fram any lawful sources.
(3) Learned counsel submits that section 13 (1) (b) talks af intentional enrichment illicitly during the period of his office. The :§: Criminal Revision No. 1666/2021 (Radheshvam Gupta (RS. Gupta) Ws. State of MP } Explanation | provides for the meaning attributed to words "intentionally enrichment" i¢. "a person shall be presumed to have dheithy enriched himself intentionally if he or any other persen on his behalf either is in possession of or has, at any time during the period of his office has been in possession of pecuniary resources ar property disprepartionate to his known sources of income which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account for.
(6) Shri Sharma submits that words "pecuniary resources" are required to be understood contextually with the words "property disproportionate" used in explanation and literal meanmg is to be given to words pecuniary resourees as liability flowing from the rigor of section 13 (1} (6) is penal in nature.
(7) Shri Sharma further submits that word "pecuniary" is required to understand as a legal concern primarily routed im money in any transaction and the word "resources" means the source of acquisition of such benefits. In other words, a person must be in possesskm of accumulated Hquid assets quantitiable m= terms af money for which he is alleged to be not in a position to satisfactorily account for from his known sources of inceme.
(8) In the instant case the petitioner is alleged to haves demanded and aecepied Rs.4000/- for doing a favour of release of payment toa retired employee. Such alleged act by no stretch of imagination : 6: Criminal Revision No. 1666/2021 (Radheshvam Gupta (RS. Gupta) Ws. State of MP } Shall fall within the four corners of the generic term "pecuniary resources" aa tsed in Explanation Pappended to 13 (1) (b) of the Act (9) Wh the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel submits that the impugned charge no.3 cannot be sustained. Ht is submitted that the punishment for offences under section 7 (1) (c} 7 (6) is minimum three years and maximum seven years and whereas punishment under section 13 (1) (6) read with seefion 13 (2) is minimum four years and maximum 10 years. Uf the petitioner is tried for offence under section 13.(1} (b) im the obtaining facts and circumstances he shall be subjected to a trial unwarranted in eyes of law and in direct conflict the concept and scope of personal Hberty under Article [4 and 2] of the Constitution of hidia. Therefore, the impugned charge no.3 deserves to be set aside.
(10) Per contra Shri Trwart supports the mmpugned charge with submissiom that since the petitimer is alleged to have received Rs 4000/- as an diceal gratification he is deemed to be m possession af such pecuniary resources which he cannot satisiactorily account for from his knewn source of meome. He has relied upon the judgement of the Division Bench (Para 2).
(il) Before adverting to the rival comtentions, in our considered apinion, it shall be appropriate to first address upon dimension and : 7s: Criminal Revision No. 1666/2021 (Radheshvam Gupta (RS. Gupta) Ws. State of MP } scape af wards "pecuniary resources", as used in Explanation | appended to sechon [3(1)(b) of the Act, Let us dissect the words "pecuniary reseurees" inte fvo parts -
"pecumary" and "resources" to comprehend their purport precisely, In Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, word "pecuniary"
has boen defined as "Of or relating to money; monetary <a pecuniary interest in the lawsuit"
As per Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, New 8 Edition, word "pecuniary" means "relating to ar connected with money"
In Legal Glossary, 2015, word "pecuniary" has been defined as "Tor, belonging to, or having relation to money; 2. in the form of money Simuarly, in Merriam Webster online dictionary word "resource" has been defined as {a} 4 Source © Psnpply or supportian tS xg] ia shire Ys fhy « waheesl sayene af Rint? TES p ERLE a, ee: foa FIATEEPS | NOYEP OS. feY availiable sueans UVEELG ES EYER aris.
used in plural: io} cemmpuiable wealth ----
wos iescusedd in phiuval and (a) a source of a UTM OF EXPRESe, Likewise, Collins online dictionary defines "Resource™ as "The resources af an organization ar persen are the materials, money, and other things that they have and can use in order to function properly." Therefore, on conjoint reading, the meanme of the words "Pecuniary Resources" come to be "a source of generation of money & wealth" and "computable wealth". In other words, "pecuniary : 8: Criminal Revision No. 1666/2021 (Radheshvam Gupta (RS. Gupta) Ws. State of MP } resources" mean source of flow of money or liquid assets in existence which is in conformity contextually with the words "property disproportionate" (in existence), as used in Explanation | appended to S.13¢130b) of the Act.
Therefore, Explanation [, as we understand, provides that a person shall be presumed to have imtentionally enriched himself ' iicithy if he is im possession of pecuiary resources or property disproportiats to his known sources of income, which the public servant could net salistactorily account for. This Court is in agreement with Shri Sharma that a person must be in possession of accumitated liquid assets quantifiable in terms of money; pecuniary resources, for which he is alleged to be nat im a position to satislactorily account for from his known sources of incame.
(i2} New, turning te the facts in hand, the sole allegation against the pettlioner is of having accepted illegal gratification of Rs 4000!-. Neither there is any seizure nor information collected against the petitioner to demonstrate the acquisition of pecuniary gains through such resources which he could not satisfactorily account for from his known saurees of income. The aforesaid discussion, in the context af S.13¢))(b), Explanation (1} read with 13{2) assumes importance as the minimum punishment preseribed therem is four years imprisonment and maximum is ten years nprisonment, as against the 9: Criminal Revision No. 1666/2021 (Radheshvam Gupta (RS. Gupta) Ws. State of MP } offence under section 7fa} and 7(b) wherein miniram punishment is three years imprisonment and maximum is seven years imprisonment. it is apposite to chserve that if the petitioner is subjected to trial for alleged offence ander section 13¢1}(b) in the backdrop of factual matrix in hand, the same shall affront the equality clause under Article 4 af the Constitution of India tantamountmg to invasion of personal liberty as envisaged under Article 21. (13) As such, in the obtaining facts and circumstances of the case, the charge framed under section 13¢1 4b) read with 13(2) of the Act being without any basis'foundational facts, cannet be sustained in the eves of law and is, accordingly, set aside.
The revision petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Rohit Arya} (Milind Ramesh Phadke) Judge Judge 06/04/2022 06/04/2022 Pawarand Me SHRIVASTAVA "S'2022.04.13 ~ 18:31:55 +05'30'