Conviction Upheld but Sentence Reduced to Time Served; SC Allows Appeal Partly in LIC Fraud Case

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard the criminal appeal of a former LIC Development Officer challenging his convictions and the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; the appeal arose on limited notice confined to whether Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act applied and on the quantum of sentence imposed for related offences.

The Court upheld the trial and Gauhati High Court findings that the appellant was guilty of offences under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the PC Act, but it altered the sentence by directing that the appellant need not serve the remainder of the term and discharged his bail bond. The bench explained that the appellant, along with a co-accused, had been found instrumental in securing settlement of two insurance claims by "projecting the insured as dead although he was, in fact, alive" and that the evidence, including unexplained blank cheques and the insured's testimony, supported conviction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We may now summarize the principles in view of the precedents noticed above. When a limited notice is issued by a bench on an appeal/petition, more often than not, the view taken is tentative. There could be occasions when the claim of the party succeeding before the court below is demonstrated to be untenable because of a patent infirmity in the findings recorded in the impugned judgment, or a glaring error in the procedure followed having the effect of vitiating the proceedings is shown to exist, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, which might have been overlooked by the Bench when it issued limited notice. Justice could be a real casualty if the same or the subsequent Bench, in all situations of limited notice having been issued initially, is held to be denuded of its jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the contentions relatable to points not referred to in the notice issuing order. As it is, since exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary, notices on appeals/petitions are not frequently issued by this Court. Nonetheless, if in a given case, notice is issued which is limited on terms but the party approaching the Court is otherwise persuasive in pointing out that the case does involve a substantial question of law deserving consideration and the Bench is so satisfied, we see no reason why the case may not be heard on such or other points. In such a case, the jurisdiction to decide all legal and valid points, as raised, does always exist and would not get diminished or curtailed by a limited notice issuing order. However, whether or not to exercise the power of enlarging the scope of the petition/appeal is essentially a matter in the realm of discretion of the Bench and the discretion is available to be exercised when a satisfaction is reached that the justice of the case so demands. If this position is not accepted, Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 read with Article 142 of the Constitution will lose much of its significance."

Background The appellant, Biswajit Das, was convicted by a trial court for offences punishable under Sections 468, 465, 420, 271 read with Section 120B of the IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act; sentences of varying terms were imposed, including three years’ rigorous imprisonment for the PC Act offence. The High Court of Gauhati affirmed conviction and sentence on 27 September 2013. The appellant sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which issued limited notice on 3 January 2014 confined to the applicability of the PC Act provision and the quantum of sentence. After grant of leave, the appellant remained on bail.

At hearing, the Court addressed whether the limited scope of notice precluded consideration of other points; after reviewing precedents the bench accepted that, in appropriate cases, it could enlarge the scope in exercise of discretion under Article 136 read with Article 142. On the merits, the Court found the prosecution evidence—including the insured’s unshaken testimony, acquaintance between insured and appellant, and six unexplained blank cheques totalling Rs. 1,67,583—sufficient to sustain conviction. The Court held that a Development Officer of LIC, an entity established by a Central statute, fell within the definition of public servant for the PC Act and distinguished earlier authority relied on by the appellant. While maintaining conviction, the Court observed that the appellant had already undergone 22 months of the 36-month sentence and that the minimum statutory term for the PC Act offence at the relevant time was one year; in the interest of justice it reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and discharged the bail bond. The appeal was thus partially allowed; pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2052/2014 (Reportable 2025 INSC 85) Case Title: Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, AOR; Mr. Anurag Mishra, Adv.; Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G.; Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR; Mr. Adit Khorana, Adv.; Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv.; Mr. Shantnu Sharma, Adv.; Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv.; Mrs. Ranjana Narayan, Adv.; Mr. Kartik Dey, Adv.