Sudershan Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(SC) 959

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri and J. Chelameswar, JJ.
Sudershan Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1403 of 2011 with Criminal Appeal No. 1404 of 2011 Criminal Appeal Nos. 1445-1446 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 1447-1448 of 2011
Decided On : 18.12.2014.

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Sidharth Luthra, A. Sharan, Senior Advocates, S.S. Shamshery, Bhakti Vardhan Sngh, Amit Sharma, Ruchi Kohli, Narendera M. Sharma, Abhishek Sharma, Ankur Sood, Shubhra Mishra and Ajay Choudhary, Advocates.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 120B, 409, 218 and 420 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 161 and 173 – Criminal Conspiracy – Cheating – Wheat was to be carried to the flour mill of A-3 in an illegal and unauthorized manner - Acquitted – Challenged - Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), received secret information that a truck was being loaded with wheat bags at the Corporations Depot and that wheat was to be carried to the flour mill of A-3 in an illegal and unauthorized manner - Wheat was, in fact, meant for distribution to persons living below poverty line and it could not have been sold to anybody else - PW-14 deputed Sub Inspector (PW-11) to verify information received by him - PW-11 then went and found that wheat was being loaded in Truck - He returned to office of PW- 14 at Solan and informed him about what he had seen - Held, There is another striking and significant feature in this case which cannot be lost sight of, namely, there was a delay of 77 days in recording statements of persons under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. No explanation, worth name, is coming forth as to why such an abnormal delay took place and it tells a lot about way investigation is carried out in present case - This factor also shakes the credibility of deposition of PW-2, who may have been led to give the statement to save his skin - There is plethora of case laws on this proposition and we need not burden this judgment by referring to those decisions - Our purpose would be served by referring to one reasoned pronouncement entitled Dhanapal v. State by Public Prosecutor, Madras, (2009) 10 SCC 401 is the judgment where most of the earlier decisions laying down the aforesaid principle are referred to - Ordered accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

These appeals arise out of common judgment dated May 03, 2011 rendered by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The appellants in these appeals were charge-sheeted and tried for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 218 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short, 'IPC') as well as Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'PC Act'). They were arrayed as accused 1 to 4 (A-1 to A-4). After the trial, the learned Special Judge, Solan, acquitted all the four appellants of the aforesaid charges, inasmuch as, as per his findings, the charges were not proved against these appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent-State went in appeal challenging the aforesaid verdict of the Special Judge. The High Court, by impugned order, has upturned the decision of the Special Judge holding all the four appellants as guilty of various offences under IPC as well as the PC Act and convicted them as follows :

Accused No./Appeal No.

Name

Designation and Charges

Accused No. 1/Crl.A. No. 1430/2011

Sudershan Kumar

In-charge of Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies, Chambaghat

1) Under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 218 IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

(SI for one year and fine of  10,000/- with default for 3 months)

2) 409 IPC - SI for two years and fine of 30,000/-, default SI for 6 months

3) 218 IPC - SI for six months and fine of 5,000/-, default SI one month

4) 13(2) PC Act - SI for one year and fine of 20,000/- with default SI three months

Accused No. 2/Crl.A. No. 1404/2011

Ramesh Chand

Helper with Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies, Chambaghat

1) Under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 218 IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

(SI for one year and fine of  10,000/- with default for 3 months)

2) 409 IPC - SI for two years and fine of 30,000/-, default SI for 6 months

3) 218 IPC - SI for six months and fine of 5,000/-, default SI one month

4) 13(2) PC Act - SI for one year and fine of 20,000/- with default SI three months

Accused No. 3/Crl. A. Nos. 1447-1448/2011

Pawan Kumar Sahni

Owner/Proprietor of the Flour Mill (Giri Raj Atta Mill)

Under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 218 IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

(RI for one year and fine of  20,000/- with default SI 3 months)

Accused No. 4/Crl. A. Nos. 1445-1446/2011

Ramesh Chand-II

Munshi of Pawan Kumar Sahni

Under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 218 IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

(RI for one year and fine of  20,000/- with default SI 3 months)

Special leave to appeal was granted by this Court on July 18, 2011 and July 22, 2011 respectively in the petitions filed by the appellants. By the same orders, this Court suspended the sentence of the appellants on certain terms. The appellants are, accordingly, on bail.

2. The factual matrix which led to the charge of these appellants, is succinctly narrated by the High Court with due clarity and, therefore, we are taking the facts from the said judgment, which led to the trial of these appellants.

3. Appellant No.1 Sudershan Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'A-1) was working as In-charge of Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Chambaghat (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'), a suburb of Solan town. Appellant No.2 Ramesh Chand, s/o. Bhagwan Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'A-2'), was working as Helper in the aforesaid Corporation in the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Accused No./Appeal No.	Name	Designation and Charges
Accused No. 1/Crl.A. No. 1430/2011	Sudershan Kumar	In-charge of Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies, Chambaghat 1) Under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 218 IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (SI for one year and fine of 10,000/- with default for 3 months) 2) 409 IPC - SI for two years and fine of 30,000/-, default SI for 6 months 3) 218 IPC - SI for six months and fine of 5,000/-, default SI one month 4) 13(2) PC Act - SI for one year and fine of 20,000/- with default SI three months
Accused No. 2/Crl.A. No. 1404/2011	Ramesh Chand	Helper with Himachal Pradesh State Civil Supplies, Chambaghat 1) Under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 218 IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (SI for one year and fine of 10,000/- with default for 3 months) 2) 409 IPC - SI for two years and fine of 30,000/-, default SI for 6 months 3) 218 IPC - SI for six months and fine of 5,000/-, default SI one month 4) 13(2) PC Act - SI for one year and fine of 20,000/- with default SI three months
Accused No. 3/Crl. A. Nos. 1447-1448/2011	Pawan Kumar Sahni	Owner/Proprietor of the Flour Mill (Giri Raj Atta Mill) Under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 218 IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (RI for one year and fine of 20,000/- with default SI 3 months)
Accused No. 4/Crl. A. Nos. 1445-1446/2011	Ramesh Chand-II	Munshi of Pawan Kumar Sahni Under Section 120-B read with Sections 409 and 218 IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (RI for one year and fine of 20,000/- with default SI 3 months)

2014 Supreme(SC) 959

Cases Referred (2)