In a pivotal judgment, the Supreme Court of India held that its discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution allow it to consider legal issues beyond the limited scope of notice if substantial justice so demands. The decision, delivered in Biswajit Das vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Criminal Appeal No. 2052/2014), underscores the Court’s commitment to prioritizing justice over procedural constraints.
A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan addressed critical legal issues surrounding the scope of appeals under Article 136, the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and the appropriate sentencing for the appellant.
Case Background
The appellant, Biswajit Das, a former Development Officer at the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), was convicted for his involvement in fraudulent insurance claim settlements. Along with a co-convict, Das facilitated the falsification of death claims for an insured individual who was, in fact, alive.
The trial court convicted him under Sections 468, 465, and 420 read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for various durations, with the longest being three years. The Gauhati High Court upheld this conviction.
Das subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued a limited notice in 2014 to examine two specific issues:
1. The applicability of the PC Act to the appellant, given his role as an LIC officer.
2. The quantum of sentence for the offenses under the IPC.
Key Legal Issues
1. Expansion of Scope Beyond Limited Notice
The Court grappled with whether it could address broader issues raised during the hearing despite the limited notice issued at the outset. Citing precedents like Yomeshbhai Pranshankar Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat (2011) and Kutchi Lal Rameshwar Ashram Trust vs. Collector, Haridwar (2017), the bench observed that its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 enables it to hear all legal contentions if justice requires. The Court emphasized:
“Procedural limitations cannot fetter the constitutional mandate to render complete justice.”
2. Applicability of the PC Act to LIC Officers
The defense argued that the appellant’s role as a Development Officer at LIC, a statutory corporation, did not bring him within the ambit of “public servant” under the PC Act. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the LIC is established under a central statute, making its officers subject to the PC Act’s provisions. The Court distinguished this case from State of Gujarat vs. Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi (1972), where a lecturer was acquitted under the PC Act as the corrupt acts were outside his official duties.
3. Quantum of Sentence
The Court considered whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was proportionate. Das had already served 22 months of the 36-month term. Given that the minimum sentence under the PC Act was one year at the time of the offense, the Court reduced his sentence to the time already served, observing that this would meet the ends of justice.
Court’s Observations
The bench provided clarity on the role of Article 136 in ensuring justice:
“When a limited notice is issued, the Court retains the discretion to expand the scope of inquiry if justice of the case so demands.”
On sentencing, the Court remarked:
“The interest of justice would be sufficiently served if the sentence is altered to the period of imprisonment already undergone.”
Judgment
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Biswajit Das under both the IPC and the PC Act. However, it modified the sentence to the period of imprisonment already served, discharging the appellant from serving the remainder of his term.
