w mHMil|||||||H\lllllHlllHll é @ CF0000053938 g7 g 1 in the aigh Court of Maahya ’Piadesh J5. Alp 011.,Ap32al Nu gc’f ’92. Appe ilant Ram Prasaa Soni $/O Shri Nanga 1v Ghan Semi, aged 48 years, Ex Deilelopment Officer, L.I.'C. of Irma, Champ Téhs'il arms Distt Bilaspur. Vs n. Rspcde ‘ State of NBdhya Pradesh. ennt 2 1 a Ch HIGH GOURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pritinku Dtwaker) CR.A.NO. 691 of 1992 APPELLANT Rm Prasad Sonj VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh‘ w Post for pronouncement of the judgment dated “f / 04/ 2010. Sd/— Pritinker Diwaker (£)9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR B : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITINKER DIWAKER CRAJUO. 69 1 I 1992' APPELLANT Ram Prasad Soni RNT ESPONDE State of Madhya Pxadesh Shri Ashok Swamkar, Adv. along with the appellant. Shri Praveen Das, Dy.G.A. for the State. APPLICATION UIS 374g) OF THE GREC. JUDGMENT .t 7-04-2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.6. 1992 passed by the Special Judge, Jabalpur in Special r Case NO. 20/84 convicting the appellant for the oEence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code‘and _ Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the pievention of corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for thxee years and to pay nne of Rs. 2500, in default of nne to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months on each count. 2. Brief facts of the case are that at the relevant period the accused/appellant was working as development ofdcer J» in the omce of LIC Takhatpur which was under the Head oEce Bilaspur. On the basis of complaints made by Dr. Vishalnath Dubey (P.W.-1), Paras Ram Dixena (P.W.-2), Baghela Ram (P.W.-3) Bodram (P.W.‘4), Ashok knmar Shrivastava (P.W.-6) and Raj Kumar Shrivastava (PAM-9}, on 1.12.83 FIR EXP/31 was registered against the appellant vide Cr. No. 34/ 83 for the offences punishable under Section 409 of the IPC and under Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act It is alleged that in the year 1983, “aocused1appellant had collected premium amount of Rs. 822 h‘om Dr. Vishalnath Dubey, Rs. 120 horn Parasram Dixena (PAM-2). Rs. 16000 from Baghgla' Ram, Rs. 122 %m Bodhram (P.’W.-4), Rs. 200 each Mm Ashok Kumar Shrivastava 85 Rajkmnar Shrivastava(P.W.-6 85 P.W.-9) towards the insurance policy (total amount of Rs. 17,847.90) and the receipts wcre given to them however thc said amount was not deposited in the o$ce of the Insurance Company. After mvesn'gation, on 29.10.04, the challan was $ed and on 19m Nbrch 1985 charges were framed against the accused] appellant hr the odences punishable under Section 5(1)(c) mad with Secn’on 5(2) of the pmvention of corruption Act. 3. In support of its case, the prosecuu'on has emmined as many as 1 1 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recolded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charge levelled against him and pleaded his innocence. This apaxt four defence witnesses have also been examined by him in support of his case. \ 4. After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Oourt has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant for the ‘oEence as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. f‘ 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that he is not pressing this appeal as far as it relates to conviction part of the impugned judgment and would conhne his argument to the sentence part thereof only. According to him, the appellant is now aged about 65 years; he has already been terminated hum his service in the year 1985, he is not receiving any pension nor has been given any dues horn the 1 department; the incident is said to have taken place in the year 1983; he was initially suspended in the year 1983 and i thus 27 years have already elapsed, no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellant to jail. He however, fairly submits that the appellant has never remained in jail but he is willing to pay some more tine amount in addition to the hue amount which has already been imposed by the Court below which has already been deposited by him. He has strongly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of D.Srlni I m etc. Vs. Delhi Special police Est. etc. reported in AIR 1993 SC 296, in the v ’ t " l matter of Vidhyaduar Ganesh Lwyckar Vs. Sta: n] Maharastra reported in 1993 0r.L.J. SO 3667, in the matter of state ofHimachal nude!!! Vs. Kai-m it reported in AIR 2006 SC 2211. 6. On the other hand, opposing the submission of tho counsel for the appellant, it has been argued by the counsel for the State that no leniency can be shown to the appellant while imposing the sentence. He submits that the appellmt cannot be set nee merely after imposing heavy nne amount otherwise the‘very purpose of enacting the special law would be nustmted. 7. I have heanl counsel for the parties. In Secn’on 5(1)(c) read with Seclion 5(2) of the pmvenn'on of corruption Act, the minimum sentence has been prescribed as one year whereas the maximum sentence is of seven years however as per the proviso, the ‘ power has been g‘ven to the Court to reduce the sentence nom one year after recording some special reasons in writing. In the case as cited by the counsel for the appellant it appears that in all these cases the accused[appelhnts have remained in jail for some time and therefore in the special circumstances the Apex Court has reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. In the case in hand, admittedly the appellant has not remained in jail even for a single day. In the matter of State of A.P. Vs. V.Vaslmm Ran reported in (2004) 9 SCC 319, the Apex Court has made the following Observations: 28. Coming to the question of sentence, the learned counsel’for the accused suhmitted that the accused is presently aged 75 years. At the relevant point of time, the minimum sentence was one year and for special reasons this sentence could be reduced. In a case involving acceptance of illegal gatiiication them is no scope for any leniency. The tentacles of s corrup1ion am spmading kst in the saciety corroding the moml %re and consequentiany in most cases, the economic structure of the country. It has assumed alarming pmpmtiuns in mcent times. Through the occurfence at hand took placc nearly 14 yca1s back, yet as noted at the threshold, the Act was brought on the anvil in ‘the year of the county’s independence. The object appeared to be to the nip the propensity for being comipt in the bud. The growth of conuph'on has to a great extend hustrated the pmpose for which the Act was enacted, and both the Act and its successor Act in 1988 do not appear to have curbed the gowth of corruption and to have achieved the intended results. 29. As observed in Madhukar case, in the conesponding provision of the Act of 1988 [Section 13(2) of that Act) there is no such pmviso as in Section 5(2) of the earlier Act and no power whatsoever is given to the coutt to impose a sentence less than the minimum, even if them am special reasons for doing so. Parliament nxed the minimum sentence of imprisonment of one year even under the Act of 1947 by making an amendment to it in 1958 for which the legslative language is appaiently peremptory ie. “shall not belless than one yeai". The proviso is in the form of a rare exception by giving power to the court for reducing the imprisonment period below one year only when there are “special reasons” and the law required that those special reasons must be recorded in writing by the Court 30. When corruph'on was sought t) be eliminated horn the polity, all possible stringent measures are to be adopted within the bounds of law. One such measure is to s pmvide condign punishment. Parliamrnt measured the parameters for such condign punishment and in that pmcess wanted to m a minimum sentence of imprisonment $r giving deterrent impact on other public servants who are pmne to corrupt deals. That was precisely the reason why the sentence was exed as 7 yeaxsland directed that even if the said petiod of imprisonment need not be given the sentence shall not be less than imprisonment for one year. Such a legislative insistence is a mhecu’on of Parliament’s lesolve to meet corruption cases with a very snong hand and to give sigaals of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of sentencing of corrupt public servants. All public servants were warned through such a legislative measm‘e that corrupt public sewmts have to, face very serious consequences. If on the other hand, any public servant is y‘ven the impression that if he succeeds in protracn'ng the proceedings that would help him to have the advantage of getting a very light sentence even if the case ends in conviction, we are afmid its fallout would an‘ord an incentive to public servants who are susceptible to corruption to indulge in such nefarious practices with immunity. Increasing the tine after, reducing the imprisonment to a nominal period can mso defeat the purpose as the corrupt public servant could easily raise the tine mnount through the same means. 31. ‘In the present case, how could the mere fact that this was pending for such a long time considered as a “special reason”? That is a general feature in almost all convictions under the Act and it is not a specialty of this particular case. It is a defect inherent in implementation of the system that longevity of the cases uied under the Act is too lengthy. If that is to be regarded as su$cient for mducing the minimum sentence mandated by ParHament the legisla1ive exercise would stand defeated. 8. Considering the totality of the case, in partleular the facts and circumstances of the case and the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of State of AP. Vs. V.Vasndmm Ran and flnther that the incident had taken place in the year 1983 i.e. about 26 years back; the fact that the appellant is aged about 65 yeaxs; has already been terminated dam sewice, ends of justice would be served if the sentence imposed on him is teduced to simple imprisonment for three months instead of three yeaxs as imposed by the trial Court. However, the iine of Rs. 2,500 imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 20,000. Appeal is thus partly allowed. Sd/~ ?RII:{NKER bIWAKER Judge