SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 865

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. CHELAMESWAR, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Kiran Chander Asri – Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1230 OF 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.5747 of 2015)
Decided on : 17-09-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Law prevailing at the time of commission of offence should be applied and not the later amended law.

Headnote:Administration of Justice – Applicability of law – Law prevailing at the time of commission of offence should be applied and not the later amended law. (Para 21)

       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 7 and 13 – Incident 20 years old – Litigation pending for 20 years – Appellant quite old and suffering with ailments – Lost his job – Minimum sentence u/s 7 and 13 at the time of offence was six months and one year respectively – Sentence of two years reduced to one year. (Para 21)

       Facts of the case:

       The Appellant was convicted and sentenced u/s 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

       In appeal High Court affirmed the same.

       Finding of the Court;

       Sentence can be reduced to the minimum prevailing at the time of offence.

       Result: Appeal allowed partly.

ORDER

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final order dated 28.05.2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. CRA-S-1070-SB of 2005 whereby the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and affirmed the order dated 04.06.2005 passed by the Special Judge, Sonepat in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1999/2005 by which the Special Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the P.C. Act”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.1000/-under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/-under Section 13 of the P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state the relevant facts in brief.

4. On 12.08.1978, the appellant joined as Lecturer in English in Education Department, Government of Haryana and was later selected as Block Development and Panchayat Officer and joined as such on 21.04.1993.

5. In the year 1995, the appellant was posted as Block Development and Panchayat Officer Mundlana. By letter dated 26.10.1994, the Director, Development and Panchayats, Haryana issued instructions to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Haryana that no auction of village fish ponds should be done without adequate advertisement and secondly, it should be done under the supervision of the Committee after following the due procedure of reserved price fixation by Fisheries Department.

6. The Gram Panchayat of Mundlana village passed a resolution for auction of fish ponds in the village and sent it for approval to the appellant, who fixed the auction for 15.03.1995. On that day, the appellant did not go to the village but deputed the Panchayat Officer, who auctioned only the Panchayat land and refused to auction the fish ponds. Thereafter the auction of the fish ponds was fixed for 22.03.1995. On that day also due to the absence of the appellant, the auction could not take place. Thereafter when Ranbir Singh – the Sarpanch of the Village (Complainant) met the appellant, he demanded Rs.2000/-as bribe to conduct the auction. The Complainant, however, expressed his inability to pay the bribe amount. The appellant then negotiated the amount of bribe. On 22.03.1995, again the appellant did not go to Mundlana Village and postponed the auction for 06.04.1995 but at that time he clearly told the Complainant that so long as the bribe money is not paid to him, the auction would not be held.

7. On 04.04.1995, the Sarpanch filed an application to the S.P., State Vigilance Bureau (in short “SVB”), Karnal stating therein the aforesaid facts. On receipt of the application, Mr. M.S. Ahlawat, the then S.P., SVB, Karnal (in short “Investigating Officer”) wrote a letter to the Government seeking permission to arrange the raid. On 06.04.1995, he got the permission from the Government to carry out the raid. Thereafter he wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat to depute one Gazetted Officer for being joined in the raiding party. As per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Ram Mehar, Xen, Irrigation joined the raiding party.

8. On 07.04.1995, the raiding party went to the office of the appellant. Hari Chand, the Inspector was deputed as a shadow witness and instructed to give a fixed signal by moving his hand over the head after the acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant The Sarpanch-the Complainant and shadow witness went to the office of the appellant and after 10 minutes, the shadow witness passed the signal upon which the raiding party went inside the office of the appellant and saw him putting something in the drawer. The Investigating Officer gave his introduction t














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top