What was decided about 'limited notice' in this appeal?

The Supreme Court said a limited notice does not cut its jurisdiction. If justice needs it, the Court may look at the entire controversy beyond that notice.

Why did the PC Act apply to a LIC Development Officer?

LIC is created by a Central statute. Under Section 2(c)(iii) of the PC Act, such an employee is a public servant when acting in official capacity.

Was the conviction under IPC and PC Act upheld?

Yes. The Court upheld conviction based on strong evidence like filled blank cheques matching claim amounts, but reduced the sentence to time already served.

How was the sentence changed?

Minimum for PC Act 13(1)(d) was one year at the time. Considering 22 months already served of a 36-month term, the Court modified the sentence to period undergone.

Which IPC sections were involved?

Sections 468, 271, 465, and 420 read with 120B IPC, along with Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.

Biswajit Das v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2025)

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a LIC Development Officer for fraud under IPC and for misconduct under the PC Act. The Court also clarified that a limited notice does not lock the Court’s powers; it may look at the whole case when justice needs it. Given time already served (~22 months of 36), the sentence was cut to period undergone.

Conviction under IPC and PC Act affirmed on strong evidence.
LIC employee is a public servant for PC Act purposes.
Sentence modified to time served due to circumstances.

```

Issues

Could the appellant be convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) PC Act and what is the proper sentence for the other offences?

Rules

PC Act, Sec 2(c)(iii): Employees of bodies set up by Central laws (e.g., LIC Act, 1956) are public servants in official acts.
PC Act, Sec 13(1)(d) & 13(2): Criminal misconduct for obtaining valuable thing/advantage by corrupt/illegal means; prescribes punishment.
IPC Sections 420, 468, 465, 271, 120B: Cheating, forgery, false documents, false statements, and criminal conspiracy.
Supreme Court’s Appellate Powers: Limited notice guides discretion but does not remove jurisdiction to decide broader issues when justice demands.

Facts (Timeline)

LIC Development Officer Biswajit Das allegedly engineered two false insurance claim settlements.

An insured person was shown as dead though alive; Das acted with a co-convict.

Evidence: friendly ties with insured; policies “upgraded”; six blank cheques filled by Das totaling ₹1,67,583—matching claim amount.

Trial Court: Convicted under IPC (468, 271, 465, 420 r/w 120B) and PC Act (13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)).

Sentences: IPC mostly 2 years; 1 year for 271 & 465; 3 years under PC Act.

Gauhati High Court (27-Sep-2013): Conviction & sentence affirmed.

SLP filed; bail on 12-Oct-2015 after ~22 months of a 36-month term.

Arguments

Appellant

Limited notice should be expanded to all points for full justice.
Evidence does not prove corrupt intent beyond reasonable doubt.
Sentence is harsh considering time already served.

Respondent (CBI)

Blank cheques filled to exact claim amount show active fraud.
LIC officer acts in official capacity—PC Act applies.
Conviction and sentences are well-founded on record.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions under IPC and the PC Act. It confirmed that a LIC officer is a public servant for Section 13 PC Act. Using its discretion, the Court treated the limited notice as no curb on jurisdiction and examined the necessary issues for complete justice. Considering that the appellant had already served ~22 months, the Court modified the sentence to period undergone.

Ratio

Jurisdiction not shackled by limited notice: It guides discretion, not power.
LIC employee = public servant: PC Act applies via Sec 2(c)(iii) when acting officially.
Evidence-based upholding: Documentary trail (cheques matching claim) supports guilt.
Sentencing fairness: Time served and minimum term considered to tailor punishment.

Why It Matters

Students learn two things: how appellate discretion works in the Supreme Court and how the PC Act covers employees of statutory bodies. It also shows proportional sentencing in practice.

Key Takeaways

Limited notice ≠ limited power; it’s about discretion.
LIC staff can face PC Act charges for official misconduct.
Strong documentary evidence can sustain convictions.
Sentences may be calibrated to period undergone.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Notice is Narrow, Power is Wide; LIC = Public-Side.”

Check Power: Limited notice guides, does not bind.
Check Status: Is the body statutory? If yes → PC Act applies.
Check Fairness: Consider time served and minimum terms.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Does the PC Act apply to a LIC officer and should the conviction/sentence stand?

Rule

Sec 2(c)(iii), 13(1)(d), 13(2) PC Act; IPC 420, 468, 465, 271, 120B; appellate discretion on limited notice.

Application

Evidence of forged process and cheques; conduct done as LIC officer → PC Act attracted.

Conclusion

Convictions affirmed; sentence reduced to period undergone in the interests of justice.

Glossary

Limited Notice: When the Court initially lists specific points; discretion remains to widen scope.
Public Servant (PC Act): Includes employees of statutory corporations like LIC when acting officially.
Period Undergone: Sentence adjusted to the time already spent in custody.