Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 74 (0.65 seconds)The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George on 24 August, 1964
51. The learned ASG, submitted that in contrast to the tenor and language used in
Section 11, Sections 13 (1) (a) to (d) and (d) (i), the phraseology used in Section 13
(1) (d) (ii) and (iii) significantly do not mandate mens rea, or criminal intent, for the
act to be an offence. It was submitted that these species of criminal misconduct,
depended on the proof of the essential ingredient; in the case of Section 13 (1) (d) (ii)
it was "abuse" of office; in the case of Section 13 (1) (d) (iii) it was causing loss
contrary to public interest; in both cases, it is not necessary to prove that the offender
had anything to gain. So long as it was proved that the abuse, or loss to public was to
the benefit of someone else, the necessary requirements of the law stand fulfilled.
Counsel urged that the plain meaning of the statute has to be given effect to, rather
than reading into words that do not exist. Urging that the specific mention of words,
indicating intent, or mental state, in the other offences, and their omission in these two
provisions, was a pointer to Parliament‟s awareness that in not all kinds of
misbehavior, was it possible to prove such mental state. Yet, the deviant behavior,
which these provisions sought to deal with, by criminalizing them, and prescribing
punishment, carried with it the odium of prejudice to public interest. Contending that
the prosecution is under no obligation to prove what it is not required by law to, the
ASG relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Ranjit Udeshi v State of
Maharastra 1965 (1) SCR 65, as well as State of Maharastra v Meyer Hans George
1965 (1) SCR 123, particularly the latter judgment, where the Supreme Court had
ruled that though mens rea would be generally understood as a necessary ingredient
which the prosecution would have to prove, yet it (mens rea or a mind at fault being
the basis of a crime)
Crl.A.Nos. 482/02, 509/02 & 536/02 Page 35
―...is not an inflexible rule, and a statute may relate to such a subject matter
and may be so framed as to make an act criminal whether there has been any
intention to break the law or otherwise to do wrong, or not...‖
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Dineshchandra Jamnadas Gandhi vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 17 January, 1989
More than a decade later, similar views were echoed - this time by Venkatachalaiah,
J in Dineshchandra Jamnadas Gandhi v. State of Gujarat, (1989) 1 SCC 420:
―In Criminal Law by J.C. Smith & Brian Hogan, (5th Edn.), referring to offences
in their social context the authors say:
R.Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2003
―The gist of the offence under this clause is, that a public officer abusing his
position as a public servant obtains for himself or for any other person any
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. ―Abuse‖ means misuse i.e. using his
position for something for which it is not intended. That abuse may be by
corrupt or illegal means or otherwise than those means. The word ―otherwise‖
has wide connotation and if no limitation is placed on it, the words ―corrupt‖,
―illegal‖, and ―otherwise‖ mentioned in the clause become surplus age, for on
that construction every abuse of position is gathered by the clause. So some
limitation will have to be put on that word and that limitation is that it takes
colour from the preceding words along with which it appears in the clause, that
is to say something savouring of dishonest act on his part....‖
Similarly, the other cases cited, i.e. S.P. Bhatnagar (―whether the accused abused
their position and acted dishonestly or with a corrupt or oblique motive‖) Abdulla
Mohammed (supra); A. Wati Ao; C.K. Damodaran Nair; M. Mohiuddin and R.
Balakrishna Pillai (supra) support this view. In the last decision, it was held that the
offence requires intention, and the offence comprehended an ―element of mental state
would be necessary to do a conscious act to get the required result of pecuniary
advantage or to obtain any valuable thing, even if it is for someone else..‖
Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2001
132. As regards criminal conspiracy, that is one, under Section 120-B, IPC. The gist
of what constitutes the offence was summed up pithily by the Supreme Court, in E.G.
Barsay v. State of Bombay AIR 1961 SC 1762 (an enunciation that was affirmed and
applied in several later decisions, such as Ajay Aggarwal v Union of India 1993 (3)
SCC 609; Yashpal Mittal v State of Punjab 1977 (4) SCC 540; State of Maharastra v
Som Nath Thapa 1996 (4) SCC 659; Firozuddin Basheeruddin v. State of Kerala,
(2001) 7 SCC 596):
Ranjit D. Udeshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 August, 1964
51. The learned ASG, submitted that in contrast to the tenor and language used in
Section 11, Sections 13 (1) (a) to (d) and (d) (i), the phraseology used in Section 13
(1) (d) (ii) and (iii) significantly do not mandate mens rea, or criminal intent, for the
act to be an offence. It was submitted that these species of criminal misconduct,
depended on the proof of the essential ingredient; in the case of Section 13 (1) (d) (ii)
it was "abuse" of office; in the case of Section 13 (1) (d) (iii) it was causing loss
contrary to public interest; in both cases, it is not necessary to prove that the offender
had anything to gain. So long as it was proved that the abuse, or loss to public was to
the benefit of someone else, the necessary requirements of the law stand fulfilled.
Counsel urged that the plain meaning of the statute has to be given effect to, rather
than reading into words that do not exist. Urging that the specific mention of words,
indicating intent, or mental state, in the other offences, and their omission in these two
provisions, was a pointer to Parliament‟s awareness that in not all kinds of
misbehavior, was it possible to prove such mental state. Yet, the deviant behavior,
which these provisions sought to deal with, by criminalizing them, and prescribing
punishment, carried with it the odium of prejudice to public interest. Contending that
the prosecution is under no obligation to prove what it is not required by law to, the
ASG relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Ranjit Udeshi v State of
Maharastra 1965 (1) SCR 65, as well as State of Maharastra v Meyer Hans George
1965 (1) SCR 123, particularly the latter judgment, where the Supreme Court had
ruled that though mens rea would be generally understood as a necessary ingredient
which the prosecution would have to prove, yet it (mens rea or a mind at fault being
the basis of a crime)
Crl.A.Nos. 482/02, 509/02 & 536/02 Page 35
―...is not an inflexible rule, and a statute may relate to such a subject matter
and may be so framed as to make an act criminal whether there has been any
intention to break the law or otherwise to do wrong, or not...‖