SC acquits man in 1993 case, refers to voluminous evidence led in corruption cases

09/09/2026

NEW DELHI, Sep 8: The Supreme Court on Tuesday said that prosecution in corruption cases has a history of long pendency, especially because of the often "unnecessary" voluminous evidence.
The observation came from a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran, which acquitted a man in a corruption case lodged in 1993. The case was later transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
"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 bench said.
It also said there could be no conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, without a pecuniary advantage.
"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.
The apex court delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by a man challenging a May 2018 conviction order of the Gauhati High Court.
"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," the bench said.
It noted that the investigation in the case was initiated on a complaint received from the veterinary department of Assam regarding a loss of Rs 5,97,200 having been occasioned by submission of false RCC Bills for the supply of medicines, which were never supplied, but payments made to a fictitious firm.
The bench noted that seven persons were chargesheeted, of whom four were convicted and sentenced by the trial court and three were acquitted.
It said three convicted persons filed appeals before the high court, which acquitted one, while convicting two others under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act, read with Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.
The top court said, "We do not see any investigation having been taken to find out the money trail when the amounts were so disbursed from the department."
It said there was no reason to uphold the conviction under the provision under which the high court had chosen to convict the appellant.
"The appellant hence shall stand acquitted and if he is in custody, shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. If he is already on bail, then the bail bonds shall stand cancelled," the bench said while allowing the appeal.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty