Proof of abuse of office is essential for criminal misconduct under corruption law; mere possession of foreign currency is not enough.

Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof that a public servant abused his position and, by that abuse, obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The prosecution failed to prove any abuse of office or any nexus between the appellant's official position and the foreign currency recovered from his possession. Mere possession of currency, without evidence satisfying the statutory ingredients, was insufficient to establish criminal misconduct, and the burden remained on the prosecution to prove guilt rather than rely on the appellant's silence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction for criminal misconduct under the Prevention of Corruption Act could stand on the basis of seizure of foreign currency from his possession without proof that he abused his position as a public servant and thereby obtained pecuniary advantage.

Analysis: The charge proceeded under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires proof that a public servant abused his position and, by such abuse, obtained for himself or another person a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. The prosecution did not adduce evidence to show any abuse of office by the appellant or any nexus between his position and the foreign currency found with him. Mere possession of currency, without proof of the essential statutory ingredients, was insufficient to establish the offence. The prosecution bore the burden of proving guilt and could not rely on the appellant's failure to explain possession in the absence of foundational evidence.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellant could not be sustained and the appeal was allowed.

---