Appeal regarding a man named Biswajit Das, who was convicted of various offenses, including fraud and corruption, stemming from his actions as a Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officer. The court addresses the scope of review in cases where the initial notice of appeal was limited, considering previous rulings on the matter. Ultimately, while upholding the conviction, the court reduces the sentence to the time already served, noting the significant period the appellant had already spent in custody.
(A) Penal Code, 1860, Section 468 r/w Section 120(B), Section 271 and 465 r/w Section 120(B) and Section 420 r/w Section 120(B) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 2(c)(iii) ,Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Corruption – Presumption – Whether the provisions of the PC Act would be applicable to the appellant or not – Appellant – a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India was found guilty of being instrumental, together with a co-convict, in obtaining settlement of two insurance claims by projecting the insured [(PW – 22)] as dead although he was, in fact, alive – Held that having regard to the provisions of Section 2(c)(iii) of the PC Act read with Section 13, as it then stood, the appellant serving as a Development Officer in the LICI, which has been established by a Central statute, namely, the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956, had committed the offences and the contention that the PC Act does not apply to him has no substance -Held that on the basis of the materials on record, the trial court as well as the High Court was justified in returning a finding that the appellant was guilty of the offences for which he was charged, both under the IPC and the PC Act.
(Para 18 to 21)
(B) Penal Code, 1860, Section 468 r/w Section 120(B), Section 271 and 465 r/w Section 120(B) and Section 420 r/w Section 120(B) – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 2(c)(iii) ,Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Corruption – Reduction in sentence – Prayer for – Perusal of the Record of Proceedings reveal that the appellant was released on bail after he had served 22 (twenty-two) of the 36 (thirty-six) months’ prison term imposed by the trial court – At the relevant time, the minimum sentence for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act was one year – Held that since the date of the incident relates back to 2004 and the appellant has spent a little less than 2/3rd of the prison term of 36 (thirty-six) months in custody, interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the sentence is altered to the period of imprisonment already undergone – While maintaining the conviction directed that the appellant shall not be required to serve the remainder of the prison term.
(Para 23 to 26)
(C) Constitution of India, Article 136 – Special Leave Petition – Issuing of limited notice – Objection raised by respondent that having regard to the limited scope of the notice to show cause, it is not open to us to expand the scope of the appeal, hear him on all the points and record an order acquitting the appellant, if satisfied – Held that 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, 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.
(Para 8 and 16)
Biswajit Das V. Central Bureau Of Investigation
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 85: (DoJ 16-01-2025)
