Criminal misconduct requires proof of abuse of office and dishonest pecuniary advantage; mere inter-state power supply was insufficient.

A conviction for criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 could not be sustained where the prosecution failed to prove that the public servants abused their official position to secure a pecuniary advantage for M/s. Graphite India Ltd. or for themselves. The electricity supply arose from inter-governmental negotiations between Kerala and Karnataka during a power shortage, and the later allocation and pricing of imported energy to consumers in Karnataka was a matter for Karnataka authorities and KEB. Section 43 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and Rule 68 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Rules, 1957 were held inapplicable on these facts, and the absence of a written agreement or proof of scarcity in Kerala did not establish criminality.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants committed criminal misconduct by abusing their official position so as to cause M/s. Graphite India Ltd. to obtain electricity and pecuniary advantage, and whether the alleged supply of electricity contravened the governing statutory and administrative framework.

Analysis: The supply of electricity was found to have been made by the State of Kerala to the State of Karnataka/KEB pursuant to inter-governmental negotiations at ministerial level, with the Karnataka authorities seeking assistance during a power shortage. The record did not establish that Kerala authorities earmarked a definite quantity of electricity for M/s. Graphite India Ltd., that the appellants made any direct effort to secure benefit for that company, or that they obtained any advantage for themselves. The subsequent allocation and pricing of imported energy to consumers in Karnataka, including M/s. Graphite India Ltd., was held to be a matter for the Karnataka authorities and KEB. The Court also held that Section 43 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and Rule 68 of the Kerala State Electricity Board Rules, 1957 were not attracted on these facts, and that the absence of a written agreement or proof of scarcity in Kerala did not establish criminality. As the essential ingredients of Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were not proved, and mens rea was lacking, the conviction could not stand.

Conclusion: The charge of criminal misconduct was not proved against the appellants, and the conviction and sentence were unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the prosecution must prove that the public servant, by abuse of office or illegal means, secured or caused to be secured a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, with the requisite dishonest intent; a mere governmental supply later allotted by another authority does not satisfy that requirement.

---