2007 Supreme(Del) 2160
High Court Of Delhi
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondents
Crl. Appeal 467 Of 2007
Decided On : 09/26/2007
K.B.Andley, M.SHAIMIKH, SUNIL K.KAPUR
Corruption is a societal cancer and a threat to the country's development, and cannot be looked upon as a trivial offence.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - The court dismissed the application for suspension of sentence, emphasizing the seriousness of corruption as a societal cancer and a threat to the country's development.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting a bribe in exchange for transferring a telephone. He was caught red-handed by the raiding team.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Trial Court had considered all aspects of the case, relied on witness testimony, and emphasized the seriousness of corruption as a societal cancer.
Issues: Discrepancies in witness statements, request for bail due to anticipated lengthy appeal process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the seriousness of corruption as a societal cancer and a threat to the country's development, citing the Supreme Court's observation in State of M. P. And others v. Ram Singh 2000 SCC (Cri.) 886.
Final Decision: The application for suspension of sentence was dismissed.
( 2 ) THE appellant has been sentenced by the Trial Court to undergo RI for two and a half years with fine under Section 13 (2) and RI for one and half years with find under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant argued that there were discrepancies in the statement of witnesses and the Trial Court believed the witnesses, although, they were not trustworthy. He also submitted that hearing of the appeal will take long time, therefore, the bail should be granted to the appellant.
( 4 ) I have perused the judgment and findings given by the Trial court, suffice it to say that the Trial Court has considered all the aspects of the case and has relied upon the witnesses after considering their testimony and reliability. It is a case of the appellant being caught red handed after he accepted the bribe. It is painful to note that in India the administration in public offices has become so corrupt that for even small works like shifting of telephone, rectification of telephone, installation of telephone one needs to pay bribe. The bribe culture has eaten up not only the moral fabric but has eclipsed the development of the country.
( 5 ) CORRUPTION nowadays has become a cancer in the society and this crime cannot be looked upon as a trivial offence. Supreme Court in State of M. P. And others v. Ram Singh 2000 SCC (Cri.) 886 observed as under:
"8. Corruption in a civilized society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to maliganise (sic) the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable diseased is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence " shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society. "
( 6 ) I consider that appellant is not entitled for suspension of sentence at this stage. The application for suspension of sentence is hereby dismissed.