Kiran Chander Asri vs State Of Haryana

3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state the relevant facts in brief.

6. The Gram Panchayat of Mundlana village passed a resolution for auction of fish ponds in the village and sent it for approval to the appellant, who fixed the auction for 15.03.1995. On that day, the appellant did not go to the village but deputed the Panchayat Officer, who auctioned only the Panchayat land and refused to auction the fish ponds. Thereafter the auction of the fish ponds was fixed for 22.03.1995. On that day also due to the absence of the appellant, the auction could not take place. Thereafter when Ranbir Singh – the Sarpanch of the Village (Complainant) met the appellant, he demanded Rs.2000/- as bribe to conduct the auction. The Complainant, however, expressed his inability to pay the bribe amount. The appellant then negotiated the amount of bribe. On 22.03.1995, again the appellant did not go to Mundlana Village and postponed the auction for 06.04.1995 but at that time he clearly told the Complainant that so long as the bribe money is not paid to him, the auction would not be held.

7. On 04.04.1995, the Sarpanch filed an application to the S.P., State Vigilance Bureau (in short “SVB”), Karnal stating therein the aforesaid facts. On receipt of the application, Mr. M.S. Ahlawat, the then S.P., SVB, Karnal (in short “Investigating Officer”) wrote a letter to the Government seeking permission to arrange the raid. On 06.04.1995, he got the permission from the Government to carry out the raid. Thereafter he wrote a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat to depute one Gazetted Officer for being joined in the raiding party. As per the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Ram Mehar, Xen, Irrigation joined the raiding party.

11. Vide order dated 04.06.2005 the Special Judge, Sonepat in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1999/2005 convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of the P.C. Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 13 of the P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. It was held that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of bribe money of Rs.2000/- by the appellant.

12. Challenging the order of conviction and sentence, the appellant filed an appeal being CRA-S-1070-SB of 2005 before the High Court. By judgment dated 28.05.2005, the learned Single Judge of the High Court concurred with the findings of the Special Judge and finding no merit, dismissed the appeal and upheld the order passed by the Special Judge. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant– accused has filed this appeal by way of special leave.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. Impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant is awarded one year punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the P.C. Act. So far as the fine amount imposed by the Courts below is concerned, it is upheld. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled and he be taken into custody forthwith to undergo the remaining period of sentence awarded by this Court.

September 17, 2015.