Updated: Aug, 11 2017

Section 13Criminal, misconduct by a public servant.-

(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct.-

(a) if he habitually accepts or obtained or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person for himself or for any other person any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 7; or

(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceedings or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related to the person so concerned; or

(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; or

(d) if he,--

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public, interest; or

(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income.

 Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section," known sources of income" means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant.

(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than 1[four years] but which may extend to 1[ten years] and shall also be liable to fine. 

1[ Substituted by Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act,2013 vide Gazette Notification No 1of 2014, dated 1.1.2014]

 

13. लोक सेवक द्वारा आपराधिक अवचार -

(1) लोक सेवक आपराधिक अवचार के अपराध का करने वाला कहा जाता है --

(क) यदि वह अपने लिए या किसी अन्य के लिए वैध पारिश्रमिक से भिन्न कोई पारितोषण हेतु या ईनाम के रूप में जैसा कि धारा 7 में उपबन्धित है किसी व्यक्ति से अभ्यासत: प्रतिग्रहीत या अभिप्राप्त करता है, करने को सहमत होता है या करने का प्रयत्न करता है; या

(ख) यदि वह अपने लिए या किसी अन्य के लिए कोई मूल्यवान वस्तु प्रतिफल के बिना या ऐसे प्रतिफल के लिए जिसका पर्याप्त पालन होना वह जानता है किसी ऐसे व्यक्ति से जिसका अपने द्वारा की गई या की जाने वाली किसी प्रक्रिया या कारबार से सम्बद्ध रहा होगा या हो सकना अथवा अपने या किसी ऐसे लोक सेवक जिसका वह अधीनस्थ है पदीय कार्यों से कोई संबंध होना वह जानता है अभ्यासत: प्रतिग्रहीत या अभिप्राप्त करता है या प्रतिग्रहीत करने के लिए सहमत होता है या अभिप्राप्त करने का प्रयत्न करता है; या

(ग) यदि वह लोक सेवक के रूप में उसे सौंपी गई या उसके नियंत्रणाधीन कोई संपत्ति अपने उपयोग के लिए बेईमानी से या कपटपूर्वक दुर्विनियोग करता है या अन्यथा सम्परिवर्तित कर लेता है या किसी अन्य को ऐसे करने देता है; या

(घ) यदि वह -

   (एक) भ्रष्ट या अवैध साधनों से अपने लिए या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति के लिए कोई मूल्यवान वस्तु या धन संबंधी लाभ अभिप्राप्त करता है, या

   (दो) लोक सेवक के रूप में अपनी स्थिति का दुरुपयोग करके अपने लिए या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति के लिए कोई मूल्यवान चीज या धन संबंधी लाभ अभिप्राप्त करता है, या

   (तीन) ऐसे लोक सेवक के रूप में पद पर होते हुए किसी लोक रूचि के बिना किसी व्यक्ति के लिए मूल्यवान वस्तु या धन संबंधी लाभ अभिप्राप्त करता है, या 

(ड0) यदि उसके या उसकी ओर से किसी व्यक्ति के आधिपत्य में ऐसे धन संबंधी साधन एवं ऐसी सम्पति हो जो उसकी आय की ज्ञात स्त्रोतों की आनुपातिक है अथवा उसकी पदीय कालावधि के दौरान किसी समय आधिपत्य में रही है जिसका लोक सेवक समाधानप्रद रूप से विवरण नहीं दे सकता |

स्पष्टीकरण - इस धारा के उद्देश्यों के लिए आय के ज्ञात स्रोतों पद का तात्पर्य होगा कोई ऐसे वैध स्रोत जिससे आय प्राप्त की गई है और लोक सेवक पर तत्समय प्रवृत्त किसी विधि, नियम या आदेश के अधीन उसकी प्राप्ति की सूचना दे दी गई है।

(2) कोई लोक सेवक जो आपराधिक अवचार करेगा ऐसे अवधि के कारावास से दंडित किया जाएगा जो 1[चार वर्ष] से कम की नहीं होगी किन्तु जो 1[दस वर्ष] तक की हो सकेगी और जुर्माने से भी दंडनीय किया जाएगा ।

 

1[लोकपाल और लोकायुक्त अधिनियम, 2013 (क्र. 1 सन् 2014) द्वारा प्रतिस्थापित ]

 
 

 

 

COMMENTARY AND CASE LAWS

 

  1.  The charge for which the appellant finally convicted , different from the original charge being tried, Held this to be opposed to fundamental  precepts of a criminal prosecution [Vasant Rao Guhe Vs State of Madhya Pradesh:SC:Aug 09, 2017]- While deciding the appeal under  Section 13(1)(e),  Supreme Court has held that "Admittedly, having regard to the ultimate figures as calculated by the Courts below, the charge has undergone a metamorphosis. This assumes immense significance in view of the fact that no fresh charge had been framed on the allegations for which the appellant was eventually convicted and sentenced. Any adverse inference prejudicial to the appellant was thus not available in law, he not having been confronted with the altered imputations. To reiterate, the charge for which the appellant finally has been convicted wears a new complexion different from the one with which he had been arraigned at the initiation of the trial. The appellant thus for all practical purposes was subjected to a trial involving fleeting frames of accusations of which he was denied prior notice. This is clearly opposed to the fundamental  precepts of a criminal prosecution."
  2. The figures ultimately arrived at by the Trial Court patently different from those of the charge framed put on trial. In other words, the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on a charge different from the one framed against him and that too on the basis of calculations made by it by applying inferences and guess works, opposed to  the fundamental  precepts of a criminal prosecution [Vasant Rao Guhe Vs State of Madhya Pradesh:SC:Aug 09, 2017]- While deciding the appeal under  Section 13(1)(e),  Supreme Court has held that "Trial Court on the two major heads of income i.e. pay and agricultural earnings, the learned Trial Court not only of its own embarked on an inquiry to ascertain and compute the figures, it wholly resorted to inferences in calculating the pay for the periods omitted by the prosecution as well as in fixing 60% expenditure from pay towards household needs. Its assessment of agricultural income of the appellant to say the least is also wholly presumptive in absence of any basis whatsoever in support thereof. This is noticeably in the face of the admission of the prosecution that while levelling the charge against the appellant of acquisition of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, it had not accounted for his income from pay vis-à-vis the periods omitted as well as from agricultural earnings. The figures ultimately arrived at by the Trial Court are thus patently different from those mentioned in the charge framed against the appellant and on which he was put on trial. In other words, the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on a charge different from the one framed against him and that too on the basis of calculations made by it by applying inferences and guess works."
  3. A person cannot be prosecuted on amorphous and transitory charge  [Vasant Rao Guhe Vs State of Madhya Pradesh:SC:Aug 09, 2017]- While deciding the appeal under  Section 13(1)(e),  Supreme Court has held that  "A person cannot be subjected to a criminal prosecution either for a charge which is amorphous and transitory and further on evidence that is conjectural or hypothetical. The appellant in the determinations before the Courts below has been subjected to a trial in which both the charges and evidence on aspects with vital bearing thereon lacked certitude, precision and unambiguity. "
  4. If prosecution fails to prove that the public servant was  in possession of  disproportionate property, accused  not required  to offer any explanation to satisfactorily account therefor  [Vasant Rao Guhe Vs State of Madhya Pradesh:SC:Aug 09, 2017]- While deciding the appeal under  Section 13(1)(e),  Supreme Court has held that 'From the design and purport of clause (e) of sub-clause (1) to Section 13, it is apparent that the primary burden to bring home the charge of criminal misconduct thereunder would be indubitably on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant either himself or through anyone else had at any time during the period of his office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income and it is only on the discharge of such burden by the prosecution, if he fails to satisfactorily account for the same, he would be in law held guilty of such offence. In other words, in case the prosecution fails to prove that the public servant either by himself or through anyone else had at any time during the period of his office been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income, he would not be required in law to offer any explanation to satisfactorily account therefor. A public servant facing such charge, cannot be comprehended to furnish any explanation in absence of the proof of the allegation of being in possession by himself or through someone else, pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income."
  5. Prosecution required to prove in the realm of “must be true” category and not in “may be true” [Vasant Rao Guhe Vs State of Madhya Pradesh:SC:Aug 09, 2017]- While deciding the appeal under  Section 13(1)(e),  Supreme Court has held that " The prosecution to succeed in a criminal trial has to pitch its case beyond all reasonable doubt and lodge it in the realm of “must be true” category and not rest contended by leaving it in the domain of “may be true”." 
  6. Both the two things- One abusing the official position and another by abusing that official position,obtaining for himself or for any other person, any pecuniary advantage need be proved for offence under Section 13(1)(d)- Appeal allowed and coviction set aside. [A. SIVAPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KERALA: MAY 10, 2016]Supreme Court has held that " Insofar  as sub-clause (ii) is concerned, it stipulates that a public  servant  is  said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he, by abusing his  position as a public servant, obtains  for  himself  or  for  any  other  person  any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.  Thus, the ingredients which will  be required to be proved are:(1)   The public servant has abused his position. (2)   By abusing that position, he has  obtained  for  himself  or  for  any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. It was not even the case set up by the prosecution that appellant had  taken that money from  some  person  and  had  obtained  any  pecuniary  advantage thereby.  It was the obligation of the prosecution to satisfy the  aforesaid mandatory  ingredients  which  could  implicate  the  appellant  under   the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(ii).  The attempt of the prosecution  was  to bring the case within the fold of clause (ii) alleging that he  misused  his official position in issuing the certificate utterly  fails  as  it  is  not even alleged in the chargesheet and not even iota of evidence is led  as  to what kind of pecuniary advantage was obtained by the  appellant  in issuing the said letter."
  7. Discharging the accused and not framing charge under Section 13(1)(d) and 15  upheld [DEEPAK SURANA AND ORS Vs. STATE OF M.P: February 08, 2016]- Supreme Court held that "  The agreements in question were not even recovered from the custody of the appellants and were recovered from the vendors themselves. The agreements being unilateral and not bearing the signatures of the appellants, mere execution of such agreements cannot be considered as a relevant circumstance against the appellants. There is nothing on record to indicate that the consideration mentioned in the agreement could be traced to the appellants, nor is there any statement by any of the witnesses suggesting even proximity or meeting of minds between the appellants and any of the other accused. In the circumstances, the view that weighed with the Special Judge was quite correct. The High Court was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the Special Judge. In our considered view, the material on record completely falls short of and cannot justify framing of charges against the appellants."