The Supreme Court on Tuesday (08.09.2026) observed that prosecutions in corruption cases have a history of long pendency, often on account of voluminous but largely unnecessary and irrelevant evidence intimidating the courts.

"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," the Court stated, noting that in the present case, over 62 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who were mostly irrelevant.

The observation was made by the Court while acquitting a former government store in-charge who was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in a 1993 case relating to fake medicine supply bills, holding that a conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act cannot survive if it is found that no pecuniary advantage was obtained by the accused.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Vinod K Chandran was hearing an appeal against a Gauhati High Court judgment which had upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). It is to be noted that the High Court acquitted him of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC (now Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

The case arose out of a complaint filed by the Veterinary Department of Assam, alleging a loss of Rs 5,97,200 caused because of submission of false bills for medicines, for medicines that were never actually supplied and the payments made to a fictitious firm. Seven persons were chargesheeted, out of which the trial court convicted four and acquitted three. In an appeal filed before the Guwahati High Court, the accountant was acquitted; however, the store in-charge's (appellant) and storekeeper's conviction was upheld under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.

Aggrieved by the High Court's finding, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that the case turned “on a narrow compass” of whether a conviction under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 120B could be sustained despite a clear finding that the accused (appellant) had not obtained any pecuniary advantage.

Perusing Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the bench observed that the provision requires the public servant to have obtained, for himself or another, a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, whether by corrupt or illegal means, by abuse of official position, or without public interest. Noting so, 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 bench observed that the evidence, if at all, could have supported charges for the IPC offences, which the High Court had failed to appreciate. However, since the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI/respondent) had not challenged the High Court's acquittal of the appellant for IPC offences, the benefit of that lapse had to go to the accused (appellant).

It further pointed out that although the prosecution examined 62 witnesses, the High Court's judgment referred to only 9 of them.

“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,” the bench observed.

The Court further noted the absence of any investigation into the money trail to trace how the disbursed funds were routed, and observed that prosecutions in corruption cases have a history of long pendency, often on account of voluminous but largely unnecessary and irrelevant evidence.

“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,” the Court observed.

In the aforesaid, the bench found no reason to sustain appellant's conviction under the PC Act. Acquitting him of the charges which were upheld by the High Court, the Supreme Court directed his release.

Case: Khanindra Kr Dutta v Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 916

Appearance:

For Appellant: Mr Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv.; Mr Rohit Kumar-I, AOR; Ms Jemtiben Ao, Adv.; Mr Shaileshwar Yadav, Adv.; Ms Arundhati Mukherjee, Adv.; Mr Prashant, Adv.; Mr Shailendra Singh, Adv.; Ms Shruti Tiwarie, Adv.; Mr Ritik Kumar, Adv.; Ms Divyanshi Pundhir, Adv.For Respondent: Ms Aishwarya Bhati, ASG; Mr Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR; Mr BK Satija, Adv.; Ms Ranjana Narayan, Adv.; Mr Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv.; Mr Raman Yadav, Adv.

Click Here To Read/Download Order