Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025)

Introduction 

This case involved the conviction of a Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICI) Development Officer for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). 

• A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held that issuing a limited notice does not restrict its jurisdiction to address broader issues if substantial legal questions or glaring errors are raised.

Facts 

• Biswajit Das, a Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LICI), was charged with fraudulently obtaining settlement of two insurance claims.  
• He allegedly portrayed an insured person as deceased when the person was alive, in collusion with a co-convict.  
• The prosecution presented evidence showing that Das and the insured person had a friendly relationship, and Das had obtained policies from the insured on the pretext of upgrading them.  
• Das was found to have filled six blank cheques totaling Rs. 1,67,583, which corresponded to the insurance claim amount.  
• The trial court convicted Das under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) including Sections 468, 271, 465, and 420 read with Section 120(B).  
• He was also convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC).  
• The trial court sentenced him to two years' rigorous imprisonment for most IPC offenses, one year for Section 271 and 465, and three years for offenses under the PC Act.  
• Das appealed to the Gauhati High Court, which affirmed both his conviction and sentence through a judgment dated 27th September 2013. 
• The appellant filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. The appellant was granted bail on 12th October 2015 after serving approximately 22 months of his 36-month sentence.

Issues

•  Whether the appellant could be convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and the quantum of sentence for other offences. 

Court's Observations 

On Limited Notice and Scope of Appeal: 

• The appellant wanted the Court to hear the appeal on all points, not just those in the limited notice. 
• The Court adopted a liberal approach: limited notice doesn't restrict jurisdiction, only judicial discretion; 
• The Court can examine the entire controversy when substantial justice requires it. 

Principles on Limited Notice: 

The Court summarized the following principles: 

• Limited notice is often based on tentative views. If patent infirmities or glaring procedural errors are demonstrated later, justice could suffer if the Court cannot examine the merits. 
• Since Article 136 jurisdiction is discretionary, the Court retains jurisdiction to decide all legal points even after limited notice. However, whether to exercise this power is a matter of discretion, to be exercised when justice demands. 
• Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 read with Article 142 would lose significance if the Court cannot enlarge the scope when satisfied that substantial questions of law deserve consideration. 

On Conviction under IPC: 

• The Court upheld the conviction based on strong evidence and the appellant's inability to explain filling blank cheques for the exact claim amount. 

On Applicability of Prevention of Corruption Act: 

• The Court held that under Section 2(c)(iii) of the PC Act read with Section 13, an employee of LICI, which is established by a Central statute (Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956), falls within the definition of public servant when committing offences in official capacity. 

On Quantum of Sentence: 

• The Court noted that the appellant had already served approximately 22 months out of the 36-month sentence before being released on bail. 
• The minimum sentence for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act was one year at the relevant time. 
• Considering these factors and the principle that interest of justice must be served, the Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone, which was nearly two-thirds of the total sentence. 

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences under both the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, finding that he had fraudulently facilitated false insurance claims while serving as a LICI Development Officer. However, the Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone (approximately 22 months), considering the passage of time since the incident and the substantial portion of sentence already served.