New Delhi, July 2 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has acquitted a retired Major General in a disproportionate assets case registered by the CBI, holding that the sanction for prosecution was invalid, the officer was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself during trial, and the prosecution failed to prove that he possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.  Allowing two criminal appeals, a single-judge Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to Major General Anand Kumar Kapur (retd.) by a trial court in 2016 under the Prevention of Corruption Act.The trial court had convicted the retired Army officer under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentencing him to one year's rigorous imprisonment, imposing a fine of Rs 50,000, and directing confiscation of assets worth Rs 2.22 crore.

The case stemmed from a CBI FIR registered in October 2007 alleging that he had amassed disproportionate assets during the check period from November 14, 1971 to October 10, 2007.The Delhi High Court found that the appellant was denied a fair opportunity to lead defence evidence after the trial court abruptly closed the defence case because of a lawyers' strike while seeking to comply with the Supreme Court's direction to conclude the trial expeditiously."The Trial Court adopted an unduly technical and hurried approach in closing the defence evidence without granting a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to conclude the examination of his remaining witnesses," Justice Singh said.Stressing that procedural timelines cannot override constitutional safeguards, the judge said: "Procedural timelines cannot eclipse the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The right of an accused to effectively present his defence is not an empty formality but a substantive safeguard forming part of the principles of natural justice.""A criminal trial cannot be reduced to a race against time which overrides the duty to ensure fairness," the judgment added.

On the validity of sanction for prosecution, the Delhi High Court held that sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not a mere procedural formality but a statutory safeguard for public servants."An invalid sanction order strikes at the root of criminal trial, and any conviction on invalid sanction order vitiates the trial as well as the conviction," Justice Singh said.The judgment found serious infirmities in the sanction process, recording that relevant material, including the appellant's explanations furnished during investigation, had not been placed before the sanctioning authority."The omission goes to the root of the matter as the sanctioning authority was thereby deprived of the opportunity to consider material which was directly relevant to the source of funds and the explanation offered by the Appellant," it said.

The Delhi High Court observed that while corruption must be dealt with sternly, courts must ensure that convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act are recorded only after a fair trial and upon proof beyond reasonable doubt."A finding of corruption against a public servant carries far-reaching consequences, irreparably tarnishing his reputation, credibility, and standing in society. These consequences are even more severe in the case of an officer of the Indian Army, where integrity, discipline, honour, and selfless service form the bedrock of his service," the judgment said.At the same time, Justice Singh highlighted the need to combat corruption, remarking: "Corruption is akin to termites which, though not always visible on the surface, silently and continuously erode the stability, strength and very fabric of the nation. Even a remote or stray incident of corruption should not be allowed to go unpunished."After re-evaluating the evidence relating to several disputed assets, gifts, agricultural income, rental receipts, bank interest, and financial support received from family members, the Delhi High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Setting aside the conviction, Justice Singh said: "The appellant was denied a fair and adequate opportunity to lead defence evidence, and the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving that the appellant had amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period.""Consequently, the conviction recorded against the appellant cannot be sustained, and the appeals are allowed," the judgment added while setting aside the conviction and the order on sentence passed by the trial court.

/IANS