In certain situations, when the nature of the act committed is such that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, Section 221 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) permits conviction under a different section vis-à-vis the section under he was charged subject to certain conditions, as mentioned below:
“221. Where it is doubtful what offence has been committed.— (1) If a single act or series of acts is of such a nature that it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, the accused may be charged with having committed all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once; or he may be charged in the alternative with having committed some one of the said offences.
(2) If in such a case the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of sub-section (1), he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it.
Illustrations
(a) A is accused of an act which may amount to theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating. He may be charged with theft, receiving stolen property, criminal breach of trust and cheating, or he may be charged with having committed theft, or receiving stolen property, or criminal breach of trust or cheating.
(b) In the case mentioned, A is only charged with theft. It appears that he committed the offence of criminal breach of trust, or that of receiving stolen goods. He may be convicted of criminal breach of trust or of receiving stolen goods (as the case may be), though he was not charged with such offence.
(c) A states on oath before the Magistrate that he saw B hit C with a club. Before the Sessions Court A states on oath that B never hit C. A may be charged in the alternative and convicted of intentionally giving false evidence, although it cannot be proved which of these contradictory statements was false.”
In your case, the charge was under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but the conviction is under Section 13(1)(c) of the said Act. Generally speaking, the charges under 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act are not similar. However, it will depend upon the facts of the case as to whether the act allegedly committed by you was of a nature described in the Section 221 of Cr.P.C., as mentioned above which would have permitted the judge to convict you under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act even though the charge was framed under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act.
Please consult some good lawyer having expertise in the corruption matters, by showing the papers of your case. Some lawyer who has seen your detailed papers can only guide you properly.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
