NEERA YADAV Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 253 of 2017, Judgment Date: Aug 02, 2017

• A perusal of the above provision makes it clear that if the elements of any of the three sub-clauses are met, the same would be sufficient to constitute an offence of ‘criminal misconduct’ under Section 13(1)(d). Undoubtedly, all the three wings of clause (d) of Section 13(1) are independent, alternative and disjunctive. Thus, under Section 13(1)(d)(i) obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means by a public servant in itself would amount to criminal misconduct. On the same reasoning“obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage” by abusing his official position as a public servant, either for himself or for any otherperson would amount to criminal misconduct.
• The sentencing Court has the discretion to direct concurrency.The investiture of such discretion, presupposes that it will be exercised on sound principles and not on whims. In the Criminal Procedure Code, there are no guidelines or specific provisions to suggest under what circumstances the various sentences of imprisonment shall be directed to run concurrently or consecutively. There is no strait jacketformula for the Court to follow in the matter of issue or refusal of a direction within the contemplation of Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. Whether or not a direction ought to be issued in a given case would depend upon the nature of the offence or offences committed.
• It is well settled that where there are different transactions, different crime numbers and cases have been decided by different judgments, concurrent sentences cannot be awarded under Section 427 Cr.P.C

NEERA YADAV Versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON