Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had dismissed the appellant's appeal and affirmed his conviction by the Special Judge, Jabalpur, under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant was a Professor and Head of the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at the Medical College, Jabalpur, who had received research grants from the Atomic Energy Commission and the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). In September 1964, a double distillation apparatus was purchased from Messrs S. K. Biswas & Company of Calcutta for Rs. 450 under the Atomic Energy Commission project. In February 1965, the appellant placed an order with Messrs Goverdhandas Desai Private Ltd., Bombay for a second double distillation apparatus for the ICMR hypoxia research project, at a cost of Rs. 969.10. The order was accepted and triplicate bills were submitted to ICMR, which issued a demand draft in favour of Messrs Goverdhandas. The draft was received by the appellant on April 12, 1965. The appellant wrote to Messrs Goverdhandas that the sketch sent did not conform to the original order and subsequently cancelled the order on April 24, 1965. In May 1965, during his visit to Bombay, the appellant met a director of Messrs Goverdhandas, handed over the draft, and received a bearer cheque for the same amount. The appellant claimed that he used this amount to purchase the required apparatus from one D'Souza through Rasiklal Shah, a partner of Scientific Sales Syndicate, and brought the new apparatus to Jabalpur. The prosecution alleged that the appellant did not purchase any new apparatus, continued to use the older apparatus purchased in 1964, and thus misappropriated the ICMR funds. The trial court and the High Court convicted the appellant, rejecting his defence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the apparatus seized (Art. A) was the old apparatus purchased in 1964. The High Court itself had held that it was not possible on the evidence of prosecution witnesses to identify Art. A as the one purchased in September 1964. The Court also held that the oral evidence of the defence witness Rasiklal Shah regarding the inquiry and sending of D'Souza with the apparatus was not assailed or rejected by the High Court. The letter sent by DW3 to the appellant was accepted as genuine and corroborated the appellant's plea. Further, the appellant had produced the original receipt and given a copy to the investigating officer at the initial stage, indicating the genuineness of the bill and receipt. The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that the onus of proving all ingredients of an offence is always on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused; even if the defence appears false, that burden does not lessen. Where the onus shifts to the accused, the standard of proof is not the same as that of the prosecution, and if the evidence on his behalf probabilities the plea, he is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. The Court concluded that the appellant had established his plea and the courts below were wrong in holding that he had failed to discharge the burden of proof. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases - Prosecution Must Establish All Ingredients of Offence Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 409, 420; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) - The Supreme Court considered whether the accused had been wrongly required to prove his innocence after the prosecution failed to prove that he did not purchase a new double distillation apparatus. The Court held that the onus of proving all ingredients of an offence is always on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused, even if the accused's defence appears false or not credible. It is not for the accused at the initial stage to prove something which the prosecution must eliminate to establish the ingredients of the offence. Held that the courts below erred in placing the burden on the accused to prove purchase of new apparatus when prosecution could not identify the old apparatus. (Paras 954 C-E) B) Criminal Law - Standard of Proof on Accused - Accused's Burden to Establish Plea is on Balance of Probabilities and Accused Entitled to Benefit of Reasonable Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 409, 420; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) - The High Court had rejected the oral evidence of defence witnesses and held accused failed to discharge burden. The Supreme Court noted that where the onus shifts to accused, the standard of proof is not the same as that resting on the prosecution; if the evidence on his behalf probabilities the plea, he is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt. The evidence of DW3 about sending D'Souza with apparatus and the letter was not assailed and corroborated the accused's plea. Held that the accused had established his plea and was entitled to acquittal. (Paras 958 G-H, 962 D, 963 B-D) C) Evidence - Benefit of Doubt in Criminal Trial - Accused's Probable Plea Requires Benefit of Doubt Despite Spurious Bill if Genuine Receipt Produced at Initial Stage - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 409, 420; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) - The appellant had produced original receipt and letter from Rasiklal Shah at the very initial stage before FIR, indicating genuineness. The Court held that the appellant was not responsible if the firm M.B. Corporation did not actually exist and a spurious bill (assuming it was so) was given to him. Once the probability of the accused's plea is established, he must be given the benefit of doubt. Held that the appellant established his plea and courts below were wrong in holding he failed to discharge burden of proof. (Paras 958 G-H, 962 D, 963 B-D)
Issue of Consideration
Whether prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that appellant committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, and offence under Prevention of Corruption Act by misappropriating a demand draft for purchase of double distillation apparatus; and whether burden of proof was improperly shifted to accused.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences passed by the Special Judge and affirmed by the High Court, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that the appellant had established his plea and the courts below were wrong in holding that he had failed to discharge the burden of proof that lay upon him.
Law Points
- Onus of proving all ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and never shifts to the accused
- Accused's burden discharged if reasonable doubt created against prosecution case
- Standard of proof for accused to establish plea is not the same as prosecution and accused entitled to benefit of reasonable doubt if evidence probabilities the plea
- Even if accused's defence is false or not credible prosecution burden does not lessen
- Accused is not required at initial stage to prove something which prosecution must eliminate to establish the offence
- In criminal trial prosecution must establish case beyond reasonable doubt before burden shifts to accused to explain or controvert essential elements
