Supreme Court Warns Against Unnecessary Evidence in Corruption Trials

Pecuniary advantage was not proved

In Khanindra Kr Dutta v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of a former government store in-charge in a prosecution arising from alleged fake medicine-supply bills. The Bench held that a conviction under the then Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not stand after the High Court itself found that the accused had obtained no valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.

Concern over trial volume

The prosecution had examined 62 witnesses, although the High Court discussed only nine. The Supreme Court observed that corruption trials often become prolonged because parties lead large quantities of evidence that do not materially establish the charge.

The Court also noted the absence of a meaningful investigation into the money trail. Since the prosecution had not challenged the acquittal on other penal charges, that lapse could not be cured in the accused’s appeal. The judgment stresses focused investigation, legally relevant evidence and proof of every statutory ingredient.