New Delhi, Jul 2 The Delhi High Court has overturned the conviction of a retired Army officer in a disproportionate assets case and set aside the one-year jail term imposed on him by the trial court in 2016, asserting that while even a stray incident of corruption should not go unpunished, a finding of guilt cannot be arrived at in a cursory manner.
Justice Jamseet Singh, while allowing Major General Anand Kumar Kapur's appeal against the trial court's decision, observed that allegations of corruption cast a lasting shadow upon one's honour and reputation, and consequences are even more severe in the case of an officer of the Indian Army.
The judge held that in the present case, not only was the appellant denied a fair and adequate opportunity to lead defence evidence but the sanction accorded by the authorities for his prosecution was also invalid, adding that the CBI failed to prove that he amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.
Following a 2007 FIR by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), the trial court in September 2016 found the appellant guilty of possessing disproportionate assets of over Rs 2 crore and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 50,000 and confiscation of excess assets.
In its FIR registered on "oral source information", the CBI alleged that the appellant, who joined the Indian Army in 1971, amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income while serving in the Indian Army between 1971 and 2006.
The appellant superannuated in 2009.
The appellant's wife was acquitted by the trial court in the case.
In the judgment dated July 1, Justice Singh said the trial court adopted an "unduly technical and hurried approach" in this case by closing the defence evidence without granting a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to conclude the examination of his remaining witnesses.
The judge said that although the trial court's anxiety to comply with the Supreme Court directions to fast-track the case is understandable and justified, "a criminal trial cannot be reduced to a race against time which overrides the duty to ensure fairness".
"Corruption is akin to termites which, though not always visible on the surface, silently and continuously erode the stability, strength and very fabric of the nation... Findings of guilt under the PCA cannot be arrived at in a cursory or perfunctory manner, but only where the prosecution has established its case beyond a reasonable doubt," the court observed.
Giving relief to the appellant, the court said that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof, and in the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant's assets, like immovable properties, investments and cash, were disproportionate to his means.
It further held that the prosecution failed to establish that the entire relevant material collected during the investigation was placed before the sanctioning authority before the grant of sanction in 2009.
"I am of the view that the sanction accorded for prosecution was invalid in law, the Appellant was denied a fair and adequate opportunity to lead defence evidence, and the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving that the Appellant had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period.
"Consequently, the conviction recorded against the Appellant cannot be sustained and the appeals are allowed," the court concluded.
