Dishonest intention and abuse of office must be proved to sustain corruption and cheating convictions based on a licence recommendation.

Conviction under Section 420 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 could not be sustained where the only material was a public servant's recommendation for issue of an L2 licence for a later alleged fictitious premises. The HC found no proof of dishonest intention, pecuniary advantage, wrongful loss, or dishonest abuse of office beyond the testimony of a single witness. A mere lapse of caution or prudence in making the recommendation did not satisfy the ingredients of the offences. On the facts proved, the conduct was at most a matter for departmental action, not criminal prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the accused for offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 could be sustained on the basis of his recommendation for issue of an L2 licence to a fictitious premises, in the absence of evidence of mens rea or dishonest abuse of office.

Analysis: The only material against the accused was that, while functioning as a public servant, he recommended issuance of an L2 licence in respect of a premises which was later alleged to be fictitious. The Court found no evidence apart from the testimony of one witness to show that the accused acted with dishonest intention, obtained any pecuniary advantage, or intentionally caused wrongful loss. It held that a mere lapse of caution or prudence in making a recommendation, without proof of criminal intent, does not satisfy the ingredients of the charged offences. On the facts proved, the conduct was at the highest a matter for departmental action and not criminal prosecution.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained, as the essential ingredients of the charged offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

---