Back
1980 Supreme(P&H) 390
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Dewan, J.
Devinder Sarup
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 424 of 1979,
Decided On : OCTOBER 17, 1980
The offenses under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code can be tried together, as the specific provisions of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (XLVI of 1942) authorize Special Judges to try any offense other than those specified in Section 6 with which the accused may be charged under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 5(2) - SECTION 342 IPC - CHARGE - DEFECTIVE CHARGE - TRIAL OF OFFENCES TOGETHER - EVIDENCE - SENTENCE - EXCESSIVE SENTENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Devinder Sarup, a Station House Officer, was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code for illegally detaining and extorting money from a group of laborers. The laborers were gambling in a public place when the appellant arrived and took them to the police station, where they were detained for several hours. The appellant then offered them Rs. 57, which they refused to accept, claiming that they had been robbed of Rs. 169. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence on appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge against the appellant was defective as it did not specify the manner in which he had abused his position or the illegal means employed. However, the court held that this was a minor irregularity that did not prejudice the appellant's defense. The court also held that the offenses under Section 5(1) of the Act and Section 342 IPC could be tried together, as the specific provisions of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (XLVI of 1942) authorize Special Judges to try any offense other than those specified in Section 6 with which the accused may be charged under the Criminal Procedure Code. The court further found that the evidence against the appellant was consistent and reliable, and that the defense plea was a fabrication. The court also held that the sentence imposed was not excessive, given the appellant's abuse of his official position.
Issues: 1. Whether the charge against the appellant was defective? 2. Whether the offenses under Section 5(1) of the Act and Section 342 IPC could be tried together? 3. Whether the evidence against the appellant was reliable? 4. Whether the sentence imposed was excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The inclusion of all the necessary details in the charge may have made it better, but their absence did not amount to anything more than a petty irregularity which could be cured, especially when it did not prejudice the accused. 2. Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (XLVI of 1942) specifically authorizes Special Judges to try any offense other than those specified in Section 6 with which the accused may be charged under the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses was consistent and straightforward, and they refrained from embellishments. The defense failed to point out any material discrepancies or deviations during cross-examination. The testimony of the witnesses was corroborated by other witnesses, and there was no indication that they had any enmity with the appellant or were interested in his false implication. 4. The sentence imposed was not excessive, given the appellant's abuse of his official position as Station House Officer.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
1. This is an appeal filed by Devinder Sarup which is directed against the judgement of Shri T.S. Cheema, Special Judge, Rupnagar dated 28th February, 1979 by which the appellant has been convicted under Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 400, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He also stands convicted under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences have been made to run concurrent.
2. The facts of the prosecution case are as under :-
On 9-12-1976, Devinder Sarup was posted as Station House Officer, Anandpur Sahib. Balwinder Singh, Hazara Singh and Pohu Lal and nine others hailing from the same village used to do the work of Palledar in Anandpur Sahib Town. They used to come to Anandpur Sahib early in the morning and return to their village in the evening. Whatever money they earned during the day, the same they pooled in the evening and divided in equal share. On the date of occurrence in the evening as usual, Hazara Singh and his 11 companions after days work were present at the shop of Yog Raj, a tea-vendor of Anandpur Sahib in order to divide their days earnings. The pooled money of the days income worked out to Rs. 169 which after counting had been placed on a parnaspread on the floor of the verandah of the tea-vendor. They were yet to apportion the pooled money when the accused Devinder Sarup accompanied by some Constables arrived there. He grabed the pooled money together with the parna and also rounded up all the 12 persons and took them to the local police station on the representation that they had been found gambling with money in public premises. Hazara Singh and his companions told the tea-vendor (Yog Raj) to pass on the information about this incident to their Village Sarpanch Lakshmi Chand. On reaching the police station, Hazara Singh and his companions were illegally confined inside the premises of the police station. After about two or three hours of the said incident, a telephonic message was received at the police station from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Consequently, excepting Balwinder Singh, Kapura and Anant Ram, all others were let off. These three persons were detained in the police station and on the following morning, they were taken to local Civil Hospital to get them operated for vasectomy. It is stated that the Hospital Authorities were still busy with the preliminaries in order to perform operation on these persons when the Sub-Divisional Magistrate too arrived there and through his intervention. Balwinder Singh and his two companions were let off. In compliance with the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Moharrir Head Constable of the police station brought Rs. 57 and offered to pay the same to Balwinder Singh and his companions but the latter refused to accept the same. Balwinder Singh and his companions represented to the then Chief Minister, Punjab. The Superintendent of Police, Rupnagar forwarded the application Ex. PA of Balwinder Singh and others to the District Magistrate, Rupnagar with a view to procure his order under Rule 16.38 (i) of the Police Rules. The District Magistrate accorded the necessary sanction and this led to the registration of a case against the accused. After necessary investigation. the accused was challaned.
3 In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses. When examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false complicity in the case. He, however, examined Om Parkash (D.W. 1) and Ram Lal (D.W. 2) besides tendering into evidence some documents in defence.
4. After considering the evidence of the parties the learned Special Judge convicted the accused for the offences as indicated above. He has challenged his conviction and sentence i
