Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (5) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 592 - SC - Indian LawsOffence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that:- In the present case, no evidence at all is led by the prosecution to show that the appellant had abused his position and as a public servant, foreign currency which was found in his possession was the result of such abuse of position. It was not even the case set up by the prosecution that he had taken that money from some person and had obtained any pecuniary advantage thereby. It was the obligation of the prosecution to satisfy the aforesaid mandatory ingredients which could implicate the appellant under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(ii). The only argument which is sought to be raised is that when the aforesaid foreign currency was found in the possession of the appellant, he did not come out with any explanation as to from where he got this currency. This argument is beyond our comprehension. It is stated, at the cost of repetition, that it is the prosecution which has to prove its case in a criminal charge leveled against the accused person and it is not the accused person who has to put up his defence. Only when there is sufficient evidence placed on record by the prosecution which may prove the guilt of the accused person, the accused person may come out with the defence if he wants to meet the circumstances which have been proved against him at the time of trial. In the present case, when no such evidence is produced at all on the trial and when not even a case of this nature is set up by the respondent-prosecutor, there was no such obligation on the part of the appellant to state what could be his defense. We, thus, are of the opinion that on the basis of material collected by the prosecution, no case under the Act could be made out.
|