'Unnecessary evidence slows corruption cases: Supreme Court acquits former Assam official

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said prosecution in corruption cases has a long history of delays, largely because of the mountain of often unnecessary and mostly irrelevant evidence it routinely presents, while acquitting a former Assam official in a three-decade-old case.A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran noted that such voluminous material frequently intimidates courts, with many aspects 'way off the mark' in proving the allegations or establishing the guilt of the accused public servant.The court was hearing the appeal of Khanindra Kr Dutta, who was in-charge of a store in the Veterinary Department of Assam. He had been convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B of the IPC.The case originated from a 1993 complaint alleging a loss of Rs 5.97 lakh after false RCC bills were submitted for medicines that were never supplied and payments were made to a fictitious firm. Seven people were charge-sheeted. The trial court convicted four. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the accountant but upheld the conviction of Dutta and the storekeeper..Supreme Court approves appointment of five retired judges as ad-hoc judges.The High Court found that the storekeeper had made entries in the register and Dutta had certified receipt of medicines that never arrived.Crucially, however, it recorded that there was no evidence either of them obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. It therefore acquitted them of IPC offences including Sections 420, 471, 465 and 477A while convicting them under the PC Act provisions.The Supreme Court held that without proof of pecuniary advantage, conviction under Section 13(1)(d) could not be sustained. '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 bench said.It further observed that the High Court had committed a clear error by acquitting the accused under the IPC provisions — an order the CBI never challenged — and that the benefit of that finding must go to the accused. The actual owner of the firm had also appeared and denied receiving any money or supplying the medicines.Noting that the alleged offence dated back to 1993 and that the department itself had not initiated disciplinary proceedings despite the finding of no pecuniary gain, the court allowed the appeal and acquitted Dutta.The bench also remarked that the prosecution had examined as many as 62 witnesses, of whom the High Court referred to only nine - underscoring its broader concern about the quality and necessity of evidence led in such trials.