‘Voluminous, Irrelevant’ Evidence Adds to Long Pendency of Corruption Cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently acquitted a man in a corruption case, observing that voluminous and often irrelevant evidence in such cases contributes to their long pendency.

A Bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran made the observation while allowing an appeal filed by Khanindra Kr. Dutta, who had been convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [corresponding to Section 61 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023].

It is to be noted that Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act earlier criminalised a public servant obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage through corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position. It was deleted by the 2018 amendment. Case against Dutta was filed in 1993.

In the present case, Court noted that the prosecution had examined as many as 62 witnesses in the case, even though the high court had referred to only nine of them.

"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.

In Dutta's case, the Supreme Court held that the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be sustained when the high court itself had found that there was no evidence showing that he had obtained any valuable thing or 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.

Court, however, opined that the high court had committed an error while acquitting the accused persons under several provisions of the IPC, including Sections 420 and 477A (now Sections 318 and 344 of the BNS, respectively), but convicting them under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The CBI had not challenged the acquittal under the IPC provisions.

The Bench observed that in such circumstances, the benefit necessarily had to go to the accused.

What was the corruption case?

The investigation was initiated on the basis of a complaint received from the Veterinary Department of the State of Assam regarding a loss of Rs 5,97,200.

The allegation was that false RCC bills were submitted for the supply of medicines which were never supplied, with payments being made to a fictitious firm.

Seven persons were charge-sheeted in the case. Four were convicted by the trial court, while three were acquitted.

The three convicted persons approached the high court. During the appeal, the accountant who had passed the bill was acquitted. However, Dutta, who was the store-in-charge, and another accused, the storekeeper, were convicted under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The allegation against Dutta was that entries regarding the medicines were made in the store register by the storekeeper and certified by him as the store-in-charge.

What did the high court find about the alleged pecuniary advantage?

The high court found that the storekeeper had made entries in the store register and that Dutta had certified receipt of medicines which were never actually received.

However, the high court categorically found that there was no evidence to show whether either of them had obtained any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from the alleged offence.

The accused were consequently acquitted under Sections 420, 471, 465 and 477A of the IPC, but remained convicted under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120B of the IPC.

The Supreme Court held that this finding of the high court itself made the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) unsustainable.

Court further observed that the evidence could have been considered differently to attract some of the IPC provisions, if not all those charged, at least Sections 420 and 477A. However, the high court failed to do so.

"The CBI too failed to challenge the erroneous order passed by the high court," the Bench said.

Long pendency of corruption cases

The Bench noted that the alleged offence dated back to 1993 and observed that the case highlighted the problem of lengthy proceedings in corruption cases because of the large volume of evidence.

Court said that if no pecuniary advantage had been obtained, the department could have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the accused and even quantified the loss, but that was not done.

Court also noted that the actual owner of the firm, who was allegedly the supplier, had appeared before the court and denied receiving any money or supplying the medicines.

"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 Bench said.

The Supreme Court accordingly allowed Dutta's appeal and acquitted him.

Case Title: Khanindra Kr Dutta Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Bench: Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran 

Date of Judgment: September 08, 2026