2001(1) Supreme 187
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Jammu & Kashmir High Court)
K.T. Thomas & R.P. Sethi, JJ.
State of Jammu & Kashmir -Appellant
versus
Vinay Nanda -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 3028 of 2000)
Decided on 16-1-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Jaspal Singh, Sr. Advocate, Ashok Mathur, Pawan Kumar Bahl, Harish Kumar, M.M. Kashyap, Advocates.
(ii) Corruption-Prevention of-No leniency required to be shown in proved cases-Convicts need to be dealt with heavy hands and deterrent rod.
Corruption at any level, by any person, of any magnitude is condemnable which cannot be ignored by the judicial courts, when proved. No leniency is required to be shown in proved cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act which itself treats the offences under it of a special nature to be treated differently than the general penal offences. The convicts of the offences under the Act are to be dealt with heavy hand and deterrent rod. No populous or sympathetic approach is needed in such cases. The only exception is the existence of special circumstances for awarding the minimum sentence. (Para 2)
JUDGMENT
Sethi, J.-Leave granted.
2. Corruption at any level, by any person, of any magnitude is condemnable which cannot be ignored by the judicial courts, when proved. No leniency is required to be shown in proved cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act which itself treats the offences under it of a special nature to be treated differently than the general penal offences. The convicts of the offences under the Act are to be dealt with heavy hand and deterrent rod. No populous or sympathetic approach is needed in such cases. The only exception is the existence of special circumstances for awarding the minimum sentence.
3. The important point of law involved in the present appeal is as to whether the benefit of Jammu & Kashmir Probation of Offenders Act can be extended to the convicts under the Jammu & Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
4. The facts giving rise to the determination of the question noted hereinabove are that the respondent, when posted as cashier in the Procurement Department of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, tampered the record regarding the carriage of store articles to and fro through RTC vehicles. The word "RTC" was changed into "one RTC Vehicles" and the words "RTC was changed into the words "BTC". After withdrawing Government money for making payment to the carriers, the respondent was alleged to have misappropriated the amount with the connivance of his superior officers. It was specifically stated in the complaint filed against him that with the connivance of the Account Officer Shri Babu Ram Sharma the respondent encashed a cheque of Rs. 89,000/- from the Treasury and misappropriated the same. On receipt of the complaint against the respondent, a preliminary enquiry was conducted during which it transpired that accused had in fact misappropriated the amount upon which a regular FIR No. 23 of 1987 was registered and investigation commenced. During the investigation it was found that Cheque No.0547185 for an amount of Rs.97,952.11 was encashed by the respondent-accused but instead of remitting the amount into the Treasury, he misappropriated the same. To conceal the embezzlement he defalcated the account by making a false entry of remittance in cash book at Page No. 41. The accused confessed the non remittance of the account and when show cause notice was issued to him on 1.3.1985, he refunded the said amount in different instalments during the years 1985-87. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu who charged him for the commission of offences under Section 5(2) of the Act and Sections 409 and 468 of the Ranbir Penal Code vide its order dated 1st May, 1991. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution had examined S/Sh. Davinder Singh, Shambu Nath, Dharampal, Om Parkash, Nertar Parkash, Babu Ram, Romesh Kumar Bali, Khajour Singh, Suram Singh, Bal Krishan, Jagdish Chander, Radhey Shayam, Kuldeep Khoda, R.P. Abrol and Ranbir Singh as witnesses. In his statement recorded under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponding to Section 313 of the Central Criminal Procedure Code, the respondent denied all the allegations. After critically examining the evidence led in the case, the Special Judge, vide an elaborate judgment found the respondent guilty of commission of offences under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act and Section 409 and 468 of the Ranbir Penal Code. Upon his conviction the respondent was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year on each count besides paying a total fine of Rs.16,000/-. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
6. Not satisfied with the judgment of the Special Judge, the respondent filed an appeal which was disposed of by the judgment impugned in this case by upholding the conviction of the respondent bu
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.