"l^ > •fe' ,£.^%j ^..^./ '•<;?*" ^lf?" ^~*^~ iW^~ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kunaar Sinha, J. Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 1992 Dwarika Prasad Maithilya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT Post for Judgment ^ ^-/U_/ 2011 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ri ?,\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ^ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kyniar Sinha, J. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 1992 Dwarika Prasad Maithilya, aged 47 years, S/o Bharatlal Maithilya, Patwari Halka No. 80, R/o Village: Nardha (Nardaha), R.I. Circle, Mandir Hasod, Tahsil/District Raipur, At present R/o Shyam Nagar, Raipur, M.P. (Now C.G.) Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) Appearance: Mr. N.S. Dhurandhar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT ( 4 .11.2011) This appeal is directed against the judgraent dated 27th of March, 1992 passed in Special Case No. 8/88 by the Fourth Additional Session Judge and Special Judge, Raipur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 161 IPC & Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and "sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.300/- with default sentence of S.I. for 1 month in each count with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. - Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 1992 ::'fa^' (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- At the relevant time, the appellant was working as a Patwari in PC No. 80, village Nardha, District Raipur. Complainant- Latelu Ram Dhem.ar (PW-4) was a resident of village Nardha. He had purchased a piece of land from. one Kondi widow of S^maru Satnami for a consideration of Rs.6,000/-. The land was situated in village Nardha. The complainant wanted to get .the sale-deed registered on fhe narne of his brother Kartikram, for which, the copies of the revenue records of the land were required. The allegations are that when he contacted the appellant, the appellant demanded Rs.100/- from the complainant for supplying the copies of revenue records of the said land. The complainant made a written report dated 6.3.1986 (Ex.-P/2) to the Lokayukt, Raipur. A trap party was constituted and it was send to village Nardha. The trap party caught the appellant red-handed while receiving the amount of illegal gratification. Further investigation was made and thereafter the charge-sheet was filed. The appellant denied the charges framed against him. He took the defence of denial. The learned Special Judge, on due appreciation of evidence led by the parties.heldthat.it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant had received illegal gratification, therefore, he was liable for punishment under the aforementioned Section of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. (3) Mr. N.3. Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued tfaat it was not proved that the appellant received :Rs.lOO/- as illegal gratification and the Special Judge failed to consider that the amount was received towards payment of land revenue. Alternatively, he also argued that the incident Criminal Aupeal No. 406 of 1992 '(o F^:Ni took place in the year 1986; the appellant has been terminated from service; he has suffered the agony of trial for a very long period; presently he is aged about 68 years, therefore, he should not be sent to jail, and yail sentences awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Special Court. c (5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Special Case. (6) Latelu Ram Dhemar (PW-4) has deposed in clear words that the appellant had illegally demanded Rs.100/- for supplying the copies of revenue records of the land which he had purchased for his younger brother. He made a report vide Ex.-P/2. Trap was arranged and ultiraately, the appellant received the tainted currency note from the complainant as illegal gratification. He has given full details relating to filing of the application, usual demonstration, journey of the trap party from Raipur to village Nardha "arid giving of gratification to the appellant. Other witnesses have also been examined on this point. On due appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, the learned SpeciaJ Judge has recorded a finding that the appellant received RS..IOO/- as illegal gratification from the complainant and giving 1 Crimmal Arioeal No. 406 of 1992 and taking of the said amount as illegal gratification was fully established. After going through the entire evidence available on record, I do not find any infirmity in the above finding recorded by the Special Judge. Therefare the Erst argument advanced by Mr. Dhurandhar cannot be acpepted. (7) So far as second argument is concemed, Mr. Dhurandhar has cited two decisions. They are Dharam. Vir Sinfih -Vs- State of U.P., 1994 SCC (Cri) 195 and Ram Kishore -Vs- State of M.P., .1994 SCC (Cri) 1136 (8) In Dharam Vir Singh (supra), the conviction was u/s 161 IPC and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.500/- was awarded. The Supreme Court, while considermg the question of sentence, held vide Para- 5 as under:- "5. Now coming to the question of sentence, there are certain special reasons for reducing the same. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1977. The appellant received the tainted money allegedly on behalf of Surendra Pal Singh. The appellant has lost his job and has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings for all these years and he has become old. We do not think that this is a fit case where the appellant should be sent back to Jail at this ^ dtstance of time. Accordingly we confirm his ^ conviction and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone." (9) In Ram Kishore (svipra.), the appellant was a Patwari. He was held in a trap while taking bribe of Rs. 100/- and was convicted by '{ tfte trial Gourt as well as High Court u/s 161 IPC and Section 5 :..| .>,, ii- .«l,;s;ji>t-.4ji- Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 1992 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year. The Supreme Court, while hearing the above matter, considered that he had lost his job and had a family to support; the occurrence took place.in the year 1978 prior to coming into force of the new Act of. 1988. Under the old Act, for special reasons, the sentence could be less than one year; and, for these reasons while confirming the conviction the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. (10) A perusal of the provision of Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 would show that any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a terra which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. A Proviso is there to this sub-section which says that the Court may, for any special reasons recorded in writing, irupose a sentence of imprisonment of less than one year. Therefore, for special reasons, less than niinimiun sentence can be awarded by the Court by recording those reasons. (ll)^.In the instant case, as stated above, the incident took place in March 1986 and the trial was concluded in March 1992. / Thereafter this appeal was filed and a long time further elapsed in hearing of the appeal. The matter relates to taking of bribe of Rs.100/-. The appellant has also lost his job on account of this incident. It was stated at bar that the appellant has a big fam.Uy arid presently he is aged about 68 years and is bedridden. In the ^ Criminal Aopeal No. 406 of 1992 above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not deem it appropriate to send the appellant once again to jail. I am of the view that the ends ofjustice would be served, if the jail sentences awarded to the appellaut are reduced to the period already undergone which comes about 10 days in this matter. (12) Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant under the aforementioned Sections of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 are confirmed, however, the jail sentences imposed against the appellant are reduced to the period already undergone. (13) Subject to the above modification ofthe sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge •Stt-- vatti