Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 123
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.K.BUCH
RAMESHKUMAR PARSHOTTAMBHAI SAGAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT - Respondent
Decided On : 02/01/2007
CRIMINAL APPEAL 672 Of 1990
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – Sections 5 (1) (d) and 5 (2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 161 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 313 and 374 – Demand of Bribe – Appeal against conviction – Counsel appearing for appellant, has taken this Court through the charge Ex. 12 on page 28 of paper-book – Statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Code, 1973 and written explanation was also given vide Ex. 82, whereby he has denied the charge saying that he has been victimised by the complainant and other members of raiding party including panch Dr. Prataprai L. Anakhia, PW-2, Ex. 27, as well as PW-3 examined vide Ex. 30 – He has neither demanded nor accepted the amount of bribe amount of Rs. 5000/- as alleged, from the complainant on date of trap and only with a view to see that appellant is trapped, complainant as well as PW-3 bribe amount in teapoy (corner table) lying in his drawing room, when the appellant had gone to instruct his maidservant to collect the cup and saucer which were lying in the drawing room and was not able to see the activities of these two persons of planting the said amount – Held, Present case, incident is old by more than 22 years and if the date of conviction and sentence is considered, then also the judgment and order is of the year 1990. So for about 5 to 6 years, the appellant had remained under the hanging sword of pending trial and present appeal is being decided by way of present judgment in the year 2007, meaning thereby, after about 16 years – So Court even after observing that trial Judge was justified in imposing punishment to the appellant, can still reduce sentence keeping the totality of facts and circumstances of the case in mind and by enhancing amount of fine because it is rightly argued that any quantum of punishment and substantive sentence would have the same deterrent effect – Appellant is loser of every benefit as a Government employee and his family also would not get any advantage of any benevolence scheme available to the family member of the retired Government employee and stigmatic termination from Government services is practically civic death – So substantive sentence qua offence punishable under Section 161 of IPC is concerned, if reduced to one month by enhancing the amount of fine to the tune of Rs. 5000/-, would serve purpose, instead of Rs. 1500/- and in same way, instead of substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine – Under the old Act, no such minimum punishment was prescribed and, therefore, the substantive sentence can be reduced keeping in mind all relevant aspects. So it is possible to allow the appeal partly on the point of quantum of punishment and, therefore, the appeal is required to be partly allowed on this point – Directions issued – Appeal partly allowed.
( 2 ) THE present appeal is under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the appellant assailing the legality and validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence on various grounds. By way of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence under challenge in this appeal, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay the fine of Rs. 1500/- and in default to make payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months qua the offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code; and the appellant is also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay the fine of Rs. 1500/-, and in default to make payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months qua the offence punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Act. Of course, both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
( 3 ) SHRI Anandjiwala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has taken this Court through the charge Ex. 12 on page 28 of the paper-book. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and written explanation was also given vide Ex. 82, whereby he has denied the charge saying that he has been victimised by the complainant and other members of the raiding party including panch Dr. Prataprai L. Anakhia, PW-2, Ex. 27, as well as PW-3 Yusufbhai N. Malek examined vide Ex. 30. He has neither demanded nor accepted the amount of bribe amount of Rs. 5000/- as alleged, from the complainant on the date of trap i. e. 02nd September, 1984 and only with a view to see that the appellant is trapped, the complainant as well as PW-3 Yusufbhai planted the bribe amount in the teapoy (corner table) lying in his drawing room, when the appellant had gone to instruct his maidservant to collect the cup and saucer which were lying in the drawing room and was not able to see the activities of these two persons of planting the said amount in the
teapoy.
( 4 ) TO appreciate the say of the appellant as well as the case of the prosecution, firstly it would be appropriate to have a look on the basic charge framed against the appellant, which inter alia reads as under :
A. That on 02nd day of September 1984 at Himatnagar, District Sabarkantha, you were serving as Deputy Collector (L. N. D. 11) Sabarkantha District at Himatnagar, and as such being a public servant demanded and accepted respondent. 5000/- as bribe from the complainant Punjabhai Dahyabhai Patel son of Dahyabhai Rangabhai Patel of village Jalodar Taluka Modasa, through Yusufbhai Mohmamadbhai Malek of village Jalodar, Taluka Modasa, a gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for the issuance of an order in favour of Dahyabhai Rangabhai Patel etc. in Revision Case No. 190/84 under the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. B. That on the aforesaid day, time and place you Rameshkumar Purshottambhai Sagar being a public servant by use of corrupt or illegal means or by abusing your position as as public servant obtained a sum of Rs. 5000/- for yourself for pecuniary advantage and thereby committed an offence under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under Section 5 (2) of the said Act.
( 5 ) THE above charge is framed on the facts placed by the prosecution before the learned trial Court and if the said fac
