Indore (Madhya Pradesh): Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the conviction of former Janpad Panchayat chief executive officer (CEO) Sabeena Ninama, fully acquitting her of charges under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, and Section 120-B of the IPC.
The single-judge bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai allowed the criminal appeal against a 2018 special court judgment, ruling that supervisory oversight or administrative oversight cannot automatically be equated to criminal misconduct without concrete proof of mens rea (dishonest intent).
The case, investigated by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), stemmed from alleged financial and administrative irregularities during Ninama's tenure as CEO in Ujjain from September 2002 to October 2003. The prosecution alleged her involvement in the missing of 110 transit passbooks, non-execution of auction agreements for 26 mines, and excess payments for recruitment advertisements.
During the hearing, senior counsel representing the appellant highlighted that Ninama was neither the custodian of the transit passbooks nor responsible for maintaining the financial registers, which fell under the domain of the office accountants.
The defence also demonstrated that the mandatory deposits for mine auctions were made during her tenure, legal notices were issued, and she was transferred before any confiscation proceedings could legally mature. Furthermore, the appellant had been exonerated in a parallel departmental inquiry.
Reversing the trial court's decision, Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed: "This Court further finds that a criminal court cannot convict a person merely because she held office during the period when irregularities came to light. The burden is always on the prosecution... the accused is not required to prove her innocence."
Addressing the absence of deliberate illegal gain, the Court noted: "The prosecution has not been able to prove that the appellant obtained any pecuniary advantage for herself or for any other person, or that she intentionally caused wrongful loss to the State Exchequer. The evidence at most suggests administrative omission or supervisory inadequacy, which is not sufficient to constitute criminal misconduct in the absence of any dishonest intention."
Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove either criminal conspiracy or intentional abuse of official position beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court set aside the 2018 conviction, ordered the refund of any fine paid, and fully discharged the appellant's bail bonds.
