Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANU MALHOTRA, J.
Ram Naresh Tiwari - Appellant
Versus
C.B.I. - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 289 of 2001
Decided On : 15-09-2021
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Sections 13 (1)(d) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 186/201 read with Section 224/332/353 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 389, 313 and 428 - Public servant - Misconduct - Suspension of sentence - Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration - Appellant herein whilst being posted and functioning as a public servant in capacity of an Asst. Sub Inspector, falling under jurisdiction of Police Station had abused his official position as such public servant and had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as a bribe from complaint against in relation to disappearance of his daughter with it having been alleged that appellant herein accepted bribe from complainant as a reward for not initiating any action against him.
Finding of the Court: Accused/appellant herein had attempted to destroy the incriminating evidence in the form of the hand wash of his hand which had turned pink on being put into Sodium Carbonate solution, establishes also that during the course of the commission of offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Act, 1988, appellant had also given a blow to SI when he had tried to apprehend him after shadow witness had given the pre-appointed signal whereafter appellant herein had tried to run towards the sole exit of the Police Post where Trap Link Officer, tried to apprehend him who was also dodged by the accused/appellant herein who proceeded towards left side where he was intercepted by SI and SI for accompanying raiding party and who were thus hit by fist blows by accused/appellant herein who was finally overpowered by Insp. and Constable in which scuffle SI and SI sustained injuries which were declared as being simple as per MLCs prepared by Medical Officer at Hospital, Which brings forth commission of offences punishable under Section 201 read with Section 511 read with Section 353 of Code, 1860 and in as much as, appellant also created an obstruction in his lawful apprehension by personnel of CBI also brings forth culpability of appellant under Section 224 of Code, 1860 as rightly held vide the impugned judgment - As regards quantum of sentence imposed upon appellant upheld.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Anu Malhotra, J.
1. The appellant, vide the present appeal assails the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2001 and the impugned order on sentence dated 26.04.2001 of the Court of the Learned Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in relation to RC No. 47(A)/96-DLI whereby the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with Sections 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 186/201 read with Section 224/332/353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Vide the impugned order on sentence dated 26.04.2001, the appellant was sentenced as under:-
8. Offence u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) is “punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to seven years” and also with fine. I, accordingly, sentence the convict Ram Naresh Tiwari for this offence to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or in default, he shall further undergo SI for three months.
9. Offence u/s 201 is punishable “with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine or with both”, if the offence is punishable with less than ten years of imprisonment. And, Section 511 provides that “where no express provision is made by this code, for the punishment of such attempt”, punishment shall be “imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one half of the imprisonment of the largest term provided for the offences, with some fine as provided for the offence or with both.”
10. Thus in the instant case, convict can be sentenced to imprisonment to the maximum term of 7 by (4 into 2) i.e., 10 & 1/2 months only, besides, the fine. Hence, I sentence him to undergo SI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- or in default SI for 10 days only for the offence punishable u/s 201 r/w 511 IPC.
11. For the offence u/s 332, he is sentenced to undergo SI for one year and a fine of Rs.1500/- or in default SI for one month and for offence u/s 224, he shall undergo SI for six months and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default SI for 20 days.
12. It is further directed that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the convict shall be entitled to the benefit of set off for any period undergone in custody by him during investigation or trial of this case.”
3. Vide order dated 23.05.2001 when the present appeal was admitted Crl. M. No. 911/2001, an application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, for suspension of sentence with it having been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the fine had already been deposited and grant of bail was disposed of with directions to the effect that, the sentence awarded to the appellant was suspended on submission of the personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
4. The prosecution version is put forth through the charge sheet dated 29.08.1996 to the effect that the appellant herein whilst being posted and functioning as a public servant in the capacity of an Asst. Sub Inspector, No. 2979/D, Police Post Shanti Nagar, New Delhi falling under the jurisdiction of Police Station Keshav Puram, Delhi had abused his official position as such public servant and had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as a bribe from Sh. Sunil Kum
Illegal gratification - Suspension order confirmed - Prosecution version establishes the demand, and acceptance of illegal gratification and recovery of tainted money recovered from the appellant, a ....
Conviction and sentence must be upheld where prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
The main legal point established is that demand of bribe is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of money without proof of demand is insufficient for....
To convict for bribery, both demand and voluntary acceptance must be proven; mere recovery of money is insufficient.
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to substantiate a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe money without proven dem....
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere acceptance of money does not suffice without evidence of demand.
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
