Case: R. Sai Bharathi Vs. J. Jayalalitha &amp; Others

is possessed by a community - a measure which is indispensable for the adaptation of the individual to society. The authors of the Indian Penal Code stated that :- ....We cannot admit that a Penal Code is by any means to be considered as a body of ethics, that the legislature ought to punish acts merely because those acts are immoral, or that, because an act is not punished at all, it follows that the legislature considers that act as innocent. Many things which are not punishable are morally worse than many things which are punishable. The man who treats a generous benefactor with gross ingratitude and insolence deserves more severe reprehension than the man who aims a blow in passion, or breaks a window in a frolic; yet we have punishment for assault and mischief, and none for ingratitude. The rich man who refuses a mouthful of rice to save a fellow-creature from death may be a far worse man than the starving wretch who snatches and devours the rice; yet we punish the latter for theft, and we do not punish the former for hard-heartedness. Though we have come to the conclusion that A-1 is not guilty of the offences with which she was charged, it is clear that the property belonging to public sector undertakings was sold to firms of which A-1 is a partner at a time when she held the Office of the Chief Minister. Under the articles of association of the public sector undertaking, there is a requirement that before the sale of property is effected approval of the government is needed and sale cannot be completed without such approval because such an act will be ultra vires the powers of the Board of Directors of the company. Such approval was readily given by the Government machinery, though on paper she remained out of picture. Officers even holding small posts like a Railway Property Keeper or a Cattle Pound Keeper or a Process Nazir who is put in charge of the sale of properties in a court auction cannot purchase the properties over which they have control. In the present case, in view of the fact that Government headed by the 1st Respondent has to give permission in respect of the sale of property of these two companies, it certainly exercises powers over the same and thus there is conflict of interest. Where there is conflict of interest law has always avoided such sales being effected in favour of those who can jeopardise the fair outcome of the transaction. Whatever may be our findings on the question of valuation of the property whether it resulted in a pecuniary advantage to A-1 or not, we are clear in our mind that if the officers and others become aware of the fact that the Chief Minister of the State is interested in purchasing some properties, the bureaucracy will be over-enthusiastic to see that the sale goes through smoothly and at a price desired by such Chief Minister. Though we can visualise such situation, such facts have to be established by concrete evidence to be convicted in a criminal case and is hard or difficult to get. At any rate, it is plain that such conduct is opposed to the spirit of the Code of Conduct if not its letter. Morally speaking, Can there be one law for small officials of the Government and another law for the Chief Minister ? In matters of such nature, is the Code of Conduct meant only to be kept as an ornamental relic in a museum but not to be practised ? These aspects do worry our conscience. Respondent No.1 in her anxiety to save her skin went to any length even to deny her signature on documents which her auditor and other Government officials identified. Report leading to IPC makes it clear that criminal law merely prescribes the minimum standards of behaviour, while in public life, those who hold high offices should not take shelter under the umbrella of criminal law but stand by high probity. Further, criminal law is meant to deal with criminals ordinarily, while Code of Conduct is observed as gentlemens agreement. Persons in public life, who are gentlemen, follow such Code instead of taking escape routes by resorting to technical pleas as arise in criminal cases. Persons in public life are expected to maintain very high standards of probity and, particularly, when there is likely to be even least bit of conflict of interest between the office one holds and the acts to be done by such person, ought to desist himself from indulging in the same. Such standards of behaviour were scrupulously observed in the earlier days after independence, but those values how now dwindled and instances of persons holding high elective offices indulging in self- aggrandisement by utilising Government property or in distribution of the largesse of the Government to their own favourties or for certain quid pro quo are on the increase. We have to strongly condemn such actions. Good ethical behaviour on the part of those who are in power is the hallmark of a good administration and people in public life must perform their duties in a spirit of public service rather than by assuming power to indulge in callous cupidity regardless of self imposed discipline. Irrespective of the fact whether we reach the conclusion that A-1 is guilty of the offences with which she is charged or not, she must atone for the same by answering her conscience in the light of what we have stated not only by returning the property to TANSI unconditionally but also ponder over whether she had done the right thing in breaching the spirit of the Code of Conduct and giving rise to suspicion that rules and procedures were bent to acquire the public property for personal benefit, though trite to say that suspicion however strong cannot take place of legal proof in a criminal case and take steps to expiate herself. 44.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]the price offered by the respondents and accepted by TANSI cannot be termed to be not a fair price in regard to the properties in question going by the state of evidence on record. If the value of the properties is determined, as stated above, the view taken by the High Court in respect of the value charges under Section 13(1)(c)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Sections 409 and 120-B IPC would stand to reason22. The guideline value has relevance only in the context of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (as amended by TN Act 24 of 1967) which provides for dealing with instruments of conveyance which are undervalued. The guideline value is a rate fixed by authorities under the Stamp Act for purposes of determining the true market value of the property disclosed in an instrument requiring payment of stamp duty. Thus the guideline value fixed is not final but only a prima facie rate prevailing in an area. It is open to the registering authority as well as the person seeking registration to prove the actual market value of property. The authorities cannot regard the guideline valuation as the last word on the subject of market value. This position is made clear in the explanation to Rule 3 of Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments Rulessaid land forms part of the land out of which a portion is sold to the firms of respondents. The contention of the prosecution that this is not a comparable transaction has been rejected by the High Court for valid reasons. The approach of the High Court cannot be said to be relevant or perversedo not think that this aspect assumes any significance especially in view of the fact that one of the terms in the advertisement itself stipulates that the actual area to be sold will be according to measurement. Thus the view taken by the High Court in this regard in perfectly in order and calls for no interference31. On scrutiny of the entire evidence led by the prosecution the charge of conspiracy cannot stand as there is no link to show that the conspirators agreed to have the property sold or the property purchased at a lesser price so as to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain or to enable A-1 ad A-2 to obtain the property at a price less than its valueproperty in question belonged to TANSI a Government Company nd it was neither trust property nor was it entrusted to or under the control of the Chief Minister or any Minister. Hence, Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not attracted to the facts of the caseHigh Court did not accept the evidence of PW-12. This evidence does not in any manner advance the case of the prosecution to establish that A-6 has committed any offence40. The trial Judge proceeded on the basis that A-5 committed an error in taking into consideration the sale to SIDCO for fixing the market value of the property in dispute though, in fact, document NO. 1442 of 1991 was not the sale to SIDCO. But these documents have not been put to A-5 and he had no opportunity to explaining the circumstances under which these documents had come into existence and, therefore, the trial Judge was not justified to test his veracity with reference to those documents. Therefore, A-5 cannot be attributed with any misconductTherefore, there was no entrustment of the said properties and it cannot be said that A-1 had dominion over the said properties either as the Chief Minister or as the Minister of Industries and in any case, the evidence does not establish the ingredient of dishonest disposal or conversion of property for personal use . Thus the charge under the aforesaid section is also not established as rightly held by the High Court