Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Purushothaman. R in Sarika Chaudhary & Anr. vs State on 20 September, 2024Matching Fragments
(emphasis supplied)
95. The petitioners have relied upon the judgments in the cases of CK Jaffer Sharief v. State : (2013) 1 SCC 205 and K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala: (2005) 12 SCC 631.
96. The relevant paragraph of CK Jaffer Sharief v. State (supra) is reproduced hereunder:
"17. It has already been noticed that the appellant besides working as the Minister of Railways was the head of the two public sector undertakings in question at the relevant time. It also appears from the materials on record that the four persons while in London had assisted the appellant in performing certain tasks connected with the discharge of duties as a Minister. It is difficult to visualise as to how in the light of the above facts, demonstrated by the materials revealed in the course of investigation, the appellant can be construed to have adopted corrupt or illegal means or to have abused his position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage either for himself or for any of the aforesaid four persons. If the statements of the witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC show that the aforesaid four persons had performed certain tasks to assist the Minister in the discharge of his public duties, however insignificant such tasks may have been, no question of obtaining any pecuniary advantage by any corrupt or illegal means or by abuse of the position of the appellant as a public servant can arise. As a Minister it was for the appellant to decide on the number and identity of the officials and supporting staff who should accompany him to London if it was anticipated that he would be required to perform his official duties while in London. If in the process, the rules or norms applicable were violated or the decision taken shows an extravagant display of redundance it is the conduct and action of the appellant which may have been improper or contrary to departmental norms. But to say that the same was actuated by a dishonest intention to obtain an undue pecuniary advantage will not be correct. That dishonest intention is the gist of the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as a public servant. A similar view has also been expressed by this Court in M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala [AIR 1963 SC 1116 :
(1963) 2 Cri LJ 186 : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 724] while considering the provisions of Section 5 of the 1947 Act."
(emphasis supplied)
97. The relevant paragraph of K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala (supra) is reproduced hereunder:
"21. To attract the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a public servant should obtain for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant. Therefore, for convicting a person under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, there must be evidence on record that the accused has obtained for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant obtains for himself, or for any person, any valuable thing, or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. What we find in the present case is that there is no evidence on record to prove these facts that the appellant-accused had obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. We may clarify that the charge of conspiracy being not proved under Section 120-B IPC, the appellant-accused could not be held responsible for the act done by A-3. The prosecution has failed to prove that he has obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Similarly, we do not find any evidence on record to convict the appellant-accused under Sections 403 and 477-A IPC."
99. The judgment in the case of K.R. Purushothaman v. State of Kerala (supra) supports the proposition that it is not necessary that for constituting the offence, the petitioners needed to obtain any pecuniary advantage themselves. The allegations as levelled by the prosecution are also not that the petitioners were appointing the people known to them to gain any direct advantage themselves, but rather, that by arbitrarily appointing the said persons, the petitioners sought to obtain pecuniary advantage by way of renumeration for the said appointed persons, who were associates and aides of AAP.