Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs Satish Kumar Bhalla on 5 February, 2007

                              1
CC No. 30/99

     IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GAUR, SPECIAL
                  JUDGE, DELHI.

                       CC NO.30/99

State                Versus       Satish Kumar Bhalla
                                  s/o Sh. Jaswant Rai
                                  R/o B-101, Gali no. 8, Kanti
                                  Nagar Extension, Delhi


                                  FIR No. 43/95

                                  U/s 7/13 of the Prevention
                                  of Corruption Act, 1988.

                                  P.S. Anti Corruption Branch

JUDGMENT

Accused Satish Kumar Bhalla was Assistant Accountant in Delhi Vidyut Board , Krishna Nagar and is on trial in this case as on 15.11.1995 at about 7.45 pm, he at his shop in House No.8, Kanti Nagar Extension, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, had demanded and accepted Rs.3500/- as illegal gratification from one Rajender Tiwari S/o Shri Brahma Nand Tiwari and was caught red handed by raiding team of Anti Corruption Branch .

2. The prosecution case as put forth in the complaint is that complainant was residing at House No.3700/C/2, Gali No.7, Shanti Mohalla, Raghuvar Pura-

Contd/-

2

CC No. 30/99 II, Delhi with his family and his in-laws were also living at House No.X-3693 in that Gali No.7 and that a case of mis- use of electricity was lodged against the father-in-law of the complainant. It is further stated in the complaint that since father-in-law of the complainant was aged and illiterate, complainant was looking after the above said case and complainant got the said electricity bill decreased to Rs.30,000/- from Rs.1,00,000/- and also got the three installments made from DESU office and that after paying two installments, the third and last installment was due and was to be paid by 21.1.1995. Complainant further alleged in his complaint lodged to Anti Corruption Branch that it was revealed after going through the accounts, that DESU had received excess amount of Rs.18000/- from his father-in-law and complainant met with the dealing officers of DVB namely S/Shri Satish Kumar Bhalla, Assistant Accountant, Kailash Nath, Head Clerk and Ramesh, Clerk repeatedly and it was told that complainant's work would be done against money. It is further asserted in the complaint that on 13.11.1995 when complainant again visited the DESU office, it was told that he should pay Rs.2000.- each to the Contd/-

3

CC No. 30/99 above-said three officials and when complainant told them that his father in law is very poor person, it was told to him that Rs.3500/- should be paid to them and complainant was directed to give Rs.3500/- to accused S.K. Bhalla by going at his shop in Kanti Nagar on 15.1.1995 after 7.00 pm and he will rectify the electricity bill of his father in law. It is further stated in the complaint that complainant was against giving bribe but agreed on account of duress and he had brought Rs.3500/- of bribe amount with him and prayed for necessary legal action by saying that he had no dealings or grudge against these three DESU officials.

3. On the above said complaint, pre raid proceedings were drawn and the raid was conducted and after successful completion of the raid, bribe money was recovered from accused Satish Kumar Bhalla and FIR No. 43/95 was registered and the accused Satish Kumar Bhalla was arrested and after completion of the post raid proceedings and the investigation, challan was filed in the Court u/s 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused Satish Kumar Bhalla was summoned and copy of the challan was supplied to him and thereafter the accused Contd/-

4

CC No. 30/99 was heard on the point of charge and on 26.10.02 charge u/s 7 read with 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. Prosecution has got examined twelve witnesses in all. PW-1 Shri Dev Trivedi is the sanctioning authority and he has proved sanction order as Ex.PW1/A against the accused. PW-2 Head Constable Rattan Singh is the MHC(M). This witness has proved entry Ex.PW2/A regarding deposit of case property, exhibits RHW-II and LHW-II and personal search of the accused with him on 15.11.1995 and also proved entry Ex.PW2/B regarding deposit of RHW-1 and LHW-1 by Inspector Ranjeet Ekka on 12.1.1996 with him. PW-3 Shri Satish Narain Saxena was posted as Head Clerk in DESU at the relevant time and he had allowed the Anti Corruption Branch officials to see the service record and transfer posting orders etc of accused Satish Kumar Bhalla. PW-4 Shri Ramesh Kumar was the bill clerk and his work to correct the defective bills. This witness has proved the attested copies of Ledger and Meter Book Sheet Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C besides document Ex.PW4/A pertaining to the bill of meter Contd/-

5

CC No. 30/99 K.No.000-47849. PW-5 Shri J.L. Kamra was posted as Assistant Finance Officer, DESU Office, Krishna Nagar and proved photocopy of attendance register for the month of November 1995 and receipt Ex.PW5/B,Ex.PW5/C and Ex.PW5/D which were taken into possession by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A besides proving signatures of the accused at point B. PW- 6 Shri Rajender Tiwari is the complainant and this witness has testified about pre-raid, post raid and investigation proceedings besides proving his complaint as Ex.PW6/A. PW-7 Shri Lallan Prasad Srivastava was clerk in DESU District Krishna Nagar Trans Yamuna area who has stated that accused was working in his office and used to handle the cases of mis-use of electricity. This witness has also handed over papers Ex.PW7/A-1 to A-11 to the Anti Corruption Branch officials which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. This witness has identified signatures of accused at point A on Ex.PW7/A-

3. PW-8 Shri S.K. Sharma was posted as ACP (Investigation) and has deposed about deposit of exhibits RHW-1 and LHW-1 and sample seal duly sealed with the seal of RS on 15.11.1995 and that on 30.1.1995 Inspector Contd/-

6

CC No. 30/99 Ranjeet Ekka having collected the abovesaid articles from him for depositing the same with CFSL for chemical analysis. PW-9 Shri R.S. Gautam is the Panch Witness who has deposed about pre-raid, post raid and investigation proceedings conducted in his presence. PW- 10 Inspector Ramesh Kaushik is the part IO. This witness has deposed about investigation conducted by him. PW- 11 Inspector Rajender Singh Manku is the Raid Officer and PW-12 Inspector Ranjeet Ekka is the Investigating Officer who both had deposed about their respective roles regarding pre-raid, post raid and investigation proceedings.

5. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Satish Kumar Bhalla was recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. in which accused has denied the prosecution version stating that he is innocent and has been implicated in this case falsely. Accused has further stated that he has neither demanded nor accepted any money from the complainant nor there was any occasion or opportunity to demand or accept the bribe and that he was not at all concerned with the work of the complainant and that he had given favourable report to the Contd/-

7

CC No. 30/99 complainant one year prior to the date of raid when he was dealing clerk and since then he never dealt with the file of the complainant and that on the day of raid, he was working as Assistant Accountant in Meter Superintendent Reading and it was not his work to prepare the bill etc and that Shri Ramesh and Kailash Nath were in the dealing Section and they dealt the file and they were only concerned with the work of the complainant. Accused has further stated that complainant is known to him for the last many years and complainant used to give his bill to the accused for deposit in DVB and that complainant had also talked about the work of his father-in-law but accused refused to oblige the complainant saying that he was not concerned with this but complainant insisted upon the accused and became angry and exchanged some hot words and that on the day of raid, complainant came to him and offered the bill and some money for deposit with DVB and that when accused began to count the same and police came there and took him to the Anti Corruption Branch

6. Both the sides have advanced their submissions and the evidence on record has been analyzed. It is urged Contd/-

8

CC No. 30/99 by Sh. Alok Saxena, Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the complaint and the raid reports which are the foundation of this case, stands duly proved from the evidence of complainant, Panch Witness and the Raid Officer of this case and the defence of the accused miserably fails to rebut the statutory presumption raised against the accused and thus, charges framed against the accused are fully proved.

7. Sh. R.S. Singhal, Ld. Counsel for the accused contends that the sanction for the prosecution of the accused suffers from non-application of mind. It is further contended on behalf of the accused that evidence of the complainant reveals that one Kailash and Ramesh were also party to the alleged demand of bribe from the complainant but complainant has given clean chit to them by making supplementary statement four years after this incident and in the evidence, complainant has disowned aforesaid supplementary statement exonerating Kailash and Ramesh and has categorically stated that Kailash and Ramesh were party to the demand of bribe from the complainant and therefore, they ought to be summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. as accused.

Contd/-

9

CC No. 30/99

8. It is next contended that although complainant has disowned his supplementary statement, but, the Investigating Officer has asserted that the complainant had made supplementary statement stating that Kailash and Ramesh had no role in demand of bribe from the complainant. It is further contended by the defence that report Ex. PW-7/A-3 in favour of the complainant was already made by the accused and there was no occasion for the accused to have demanded and accepted any bribe from the complainant.

9. It is asserted by the defence that the complainant had given the electricity bill with money to the accused for making part payment of the said bill and this falsifies the prosecution case of acceptance of bribe by the accused as there was no occasion to give or take the bill alongwith the money if it was bribe amount. It is pointed out by the defence that as per the version of the complainant some talk had taken place at the spot between the complainant and the accused regarding reduction of the bill amount but the Panch Witness who was present there is silent about any talk of reduction of bill amount having taken place between the accused and Contd/-

10

CC No. 30/99 the complainant at the spot.

10. Ld. defence counsel contends that as per the evidence of Panch Witness, complainant was aware of the shop of the accused whereas the complainant has stated in his evidence that the accused had given his address on the slip and Raid Officer has stated in his evidence that the complainant was not aware of the location of the shop of the accused. Thus, it is contended by the defence that the prosecution evidence is improbable, contradictory and unreliable and since the due date of the bill had not lapsed, therefore, it probablises the stand of the accused of having paid Rs.3,500/- to the accused with bill for making part payment of the said bill and it cannot be termed as a bribe money and the statutory presumption stands repelled and the accused deserves to be acquitted.

Nothing else is urged by either side.

11. The crux of the prosecution case as emerges from the evidence on record is that the accused was Assistant Accountant in Delhi Vidyut Board (hereinafter referred to as DVB) and on 15.11.95, at about 7.45 p.m., accused came to the shop of the complainant Rajinder Tiwari, PW-6 at B-101, Gali No. 8, Kanti Nagar Extn., Contd/-

11

CC No. 30/99 Krishna Nagar, Delhi and accused had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs3,500/- from the complainant (PW-6) for rectifying the electricity bill of father-in-law of the complainant and for waiving of the surcharge levied in the electricity bill in question and the accused was apprehended at the spot after Raid Officer (PW-11) had received pre-determined signal from the Panch Witness PW-9 and the bribe money of Rs. 3,500/- was recovered alongwith electricity bill from the hands of the accused and the hand wash of the accused was taken at the spot and as per FSL report, which is Ex. PW-12/C, same has tested positive.

12. Sanction order Ex. PW1/A for the prosecution of the accused is said to be verbatim copy of draft Sanction order and so , non-application of mind by Sanctioning Authority (PW1) is alleged by the defence. However, Sanctioning Authority (PW1) has denied the suggestion of the defence of passing of Sanction order Ex. PW1/A mechanically and without application of mind. No error , omission or irregularity in the Sanction order Ex. PW1/A has been pointed out by the defence nor it is shown by the defence as to how the accused is prejudiced and that if Contd/-

12

CC No. 30/99 any failure of justice has been occasioned in this case. In taking this view, I rely upon judgment reported in 2004 (3) JCC 1398 (State by Police Inspector V/s T. Venkatesh Murthy) wherein it has been held as follows :-

''Merely because there is an omission, error irregularity in the matter of granting sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , the same will not affect the validity of proceedings unless there is failure of justice. In the above said judgment, it has been observed that explanation to sub-section (3) of Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 makes it clear that error includes competency to the authority to grant sanction. ''

13. A bare perusal of Sanction order Ex. PW1/A contains all the necessary details on the basis of which an opinion was formed by the Sanctioning Authority. The object of obtaining Sanction for prosecution of the accused is to save the public servant from harassment of malicious or frivolous prosecution . It is true that provision for sanction before prosecution of a public servant should not Contd/-

13

CC No. 30/99 be an umbrella for protection of corrupt officers but a shield against reckless or malevolent harassment of officials whose upright discharge of duties may provoke unpleasantness and hostility. Simply because Sanctioning Authority (PW1) has admitted in cross examination that sanction order Ex. PW1/A is virtually the same as draft sanction order, it would not per se render the sanction order Ex. PW1/A invalid because draft sanction is not produced before the Court. The need to cross check is there because Sanctioning Authority had retired when examined in the Court. Being ''virtually same'' or ''identical'' makes lots of difference. This is a matter of subjective satisfaction. Moreover, no failure of justice has been occasioned nor accused has alleged any prejudice on this count. In fact I find that sanction order Ex.PW1/A does not suffer from any infirmity and is legal and valid.

14. It is true that complainant (PW6) in his complaint has stated that the other officials of DVB i.e. Kailash and Ramesh were also party to the demand of bribe but they were not challaned in this case because there is supplementary statement of the complainant with the challan stating that said Kailash and Ramesh had no Contd/-

14

CC No. 30/99 role. However, complainant (PW6) in his cross examination by the defence has denied having made supplementary statement exonerating said Kailash and Ramesh and has stated that they were also party to the demand of bribe from the complainant. Since, said Kailash and Ramesh were not present at the spot and no role have been ascribed to them regarding acceptance of bribe money and the recovery of bribe money is from present accused , therefore, accused S. K. Bhalla cannot claim any parity with said Kailash and Ramesh . At the stage of defence evidence , application u/s 319 Cr. P. C. was filed by present accused to summon said Ramesh and Kailash as co-accused and the same has been heard and disposed of vide separate order.

15. The controversy regarding complainant (PW6) making supplementary statement to exonerate DVB officials Ramesh and Kailash stands resolved as the Investigating officer (PW10) has stated in his evidence that the complainant did not give any satisfactory reply regarding why he was making supplementary statement after four years to give clean chit to DVB officials Kailash and Ramesh . Since, the complainant (PW6) has initially in Contd/-

15

CC No. 30/99 his complaint Ex. PW6/A ascribed specific role to DVB officials Kailash and Ramesh of being party to the demand of bribe with the present accused and has reiterated the same in his evidence and therefore, there is no inconsistency in the evidence of the complainant regarding the involvement of DVB officials Kailash and Ramesh and so on this account , the testimony of the complainant (PW6) cannot be doubted.

16. The prosecution version as spelt out by the complainant (PW6), panch witness (PW9) and Raid officer (PW11) is sought to be discredited by the defence by asserting that the panch witness(PW9) is silent in his evidence about any talk of any reduction of bill amount having taken place between the accused and the complainant at the spot. To my mind, on the aforesaid plea, the testimony of the panch witness (PW9) cannot be doubted because the main role assigned to the panch witness (PW9) was of giving pre-determined signal after the accused asks for the bribe and it would not be a material infirmity in the prosecution case because in any case , the complainant (PW6) has deposed about the talk of reduction of bill amount and for this purpose only , Contd/-

16

CC No. 30/99 bribe was demanded and accepted by the accused. It is true that panch witness (PW9) has given twist to the prosecution case by stating in cross examination that the complainant was aware of the shop of the accused. In fact the evidence of complainant (PW6) and Raid officer (PW11) is consistent regarding complainant (PW6) being not aware of the location of the shop of the accused as the accused had given his address on slip of paper to the complainant . The aforesaid contradiction is not on a material aspect of this case and does not go to the root of the matter and it does not render the version of the complainant (PW6) and raid officer (PW11) unreliable . No worthwhile contradiction or material lacuna in the prosecution case has been pointed out by the defence.

17. In judgment reported in AIR 1998 SC 1474 (State of UP V/s Zakaullah) it has been held that the evidence of trap officer can be relied upon even without corroboration if it inspires confidence. I have evaluated the evidence of Raid officer (PW11) and I find that nothing worthwhile has come in the cross examination of the Raid officer which could discredit his testimony in any manner whatsoever. Therefore, I have no hesitation in placing Contd/-

17

CC No. 30/99 implicit reliance upon the evidence of the Raid officer to hold that the substratum of the prosecution case stands proved from his evidence and the evidence of Raid officer (PW11) receives ample corroboration from the testimony of complainant (PW6) and panch witness (PW9) as I find from the deposition of above said material witnesses , the recovery of treated GC notes (Ex. P-1 to P-23 ) and electricity bill Ex. PW6/E from the hands of the accused stands proved beyond any doubt.

18. In view of the above narration, statutory presumption u/s 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 instantly arises against the accused and the burden shifts on him to explain . To state so, reliance is placed upon judgment reported AIR 1992 SUPREME Court 1201 (B. Hanumantha Rao V/s State of Andhra Pradesh) which reads as follows:-

''In view of the fact that on washing the hands of the accused by solution of sodium carbonate, the water turned pink, it leaves no manner of doubt that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was touched and handled by the accused.) Contd/-
18
CC No. 30/99

19. This is of course rebuttable presumption . It is for the accused to show that the acceptance of money was not conscious and voluntary . The stand taken by the accused in a statement u/s 313 Cr. P. C is that he was known to the complainant and accused used to deposit the DVB electricity bills of the complainant who was residing in the neighbourhood of the accused and when complainant asked the accused to do the work of his father-in-law, the accused had refused by stating that he was not concerned with the work of his father-in-law and on this, complainant became angry and on one or two occasions, there was change of hot words . It is asserted by the accused that on the day of the raid, complainant came to the house of the accused and gave the electricity bill in question and the treated GC notes to the accused for depositing the same in DVB and when the accused began to count those treated GC notes , he was apprehended by the raiding team and the accused had told the raid team that the money given by the complainant to the accused was for depositing it towards the bill in question.

Contd/-

19

CC No. 30/99

20. To support the aforesaid defence, accused has got examined one shopkeeper Karan Singh DW2 who claims to know the complainant and the accused and of being witness of exchange of hot words between the complainant and the accused about a fortnight prior to the raid and of accused showing his inability to do the work of the complainant and of complainant threatening the accused . The version of Karan Singh (DW2) is an after thought as the same has not been suggested to the complainant in the cross examination by the defence . Moreover, the aforesaid version of the accused is inherently improbable as no reason is forthcoming from the side of the accused as to why he would accept the electricity bill and the treated GC notes from the complainant at the spot when the accused had bluntly refused to do this work of the complainant on earlier occasion and there being exchange of hot words between them on this account. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the aforesaid defence plea is not at all probable and the same deserves to be rejected straight away.

21. Although, it has been argued by the defence that acceptance of Rs. 3,500/- by the accused from the Contd/-

20

CC No. 30/99 complainant was towards part payment of the electricity bill of Rs.11,028/- in question but this argument does not cut any ice because it has not been so stated by the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr. P. C. nor it has been so suggested by the defence to the material prosecution witnesses. As regards, complainant (PW6) giving electricity bill in question with the treated GC to the accused , the same cannot probablize the stand of the accused of being part payment of the electricity bill for the reasons stated above. The occasion for the complainant (PW6) to give the electricity bill in question along with the bribe money to the accused is not far to seek as it is clearly mentioned in the complaint Ex. PW6/A itself that the accused had asked complainant to bring the electricity bill in question along with the bribe amount. Therefore, on this account, the prosecution case cannot be discarded being improbable.

22. Accused has placed reliance upon the evidence of official witness Triloki Nath (DW1) to contend that accused had no concern with preparation of the bills or correction of any kind of bills . It may be so but accused is not alone in demanding bribe from the complainant (PW6) Contd/-

21

CC No. 30/99 and DVB officials Ramesh and Kailash were also party to it . It emerges from the evidence of this witness (DW1) that DVB official Ramesh was the Dealing Assistant and DVB official Kailash was the Assistant Accounts officer of the Assessment Cell dealing with the subject matter in question. Thus, it is clear that the accused alone could not have done the work of the complainant for which bribe was demanded from the complainant by accused as well as DVB officials Kailash and Ramesh and therefore, report Ex. PW7/A3 being made by the accused in favour of complainant's work does not absolve the present accused because the present accused had initiated the work of the complainant and it could not have been completed without the connivance of the DVB officials Ramesh and Kailash. In any case, it cannot be said that the accused had no reason to demand and accept the bribe from the complainant.

23. In view of what is stated above , the defence version is rejected being not plausible and being afterthought . Resultantly, I hold that the statutory presumption raised against the accused does not stand rebutted by preponderance of probability as belated Contd/-

22

CC No. 30/99 asserted by the accused.

CONCLUSION

24. Upon meticulous assessment of the evidence on record , I hold that the charges framed against accused Satish Kumar Bhalla stands fully proved . Since, DVB officials Kailash and Ramesh have been found to be in conspiracy with present accused in demanding bribe from the complainant in this case, therefore, Anti Corruption Branch has been directed vide separate order passed on application u/s 319 Cr. P. C of accused, to proceed against them after obtaining requisite sanction. In any case, accused Satish Kumar Bhalla is guilty of the offences with which he has been charged and he is accordingly convicted for the charges u/s 7 and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 framed against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds are cancelled. He be taken into custody. Let him be heard on the point of sentence on 5.2.2007.




(Announced in the
open Court )                      (SUNIL GAUR)
                        Special Judge/Delhi/3.2.2007



                                                       Contd/-
                23
CC No. 30/99




                    Contd/-
                              24
CC No. 30/99

IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL GAUR:SPECIAL JUDGE:

DELHI CC NO. 30/99 State Versus Satish Kumar Bhalla FIR No. 43/95 U/s 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
P.S. Anti Corruption Branch ORDER At the stage of defence evidence , application u/s 319 Cr. P. C. was filed by accused S. K. Bhalla to summon DVB officials Ramesh and Kailash as co-accused.
Both sides have been heard on this application and the record of this case has been perused. It appears that this application has been deliberately filed by the accused belatedly at the stage of defence evidence with a view to have de novo trial. No doubt, Section 319 Cr. P. C gives ample powers to the court but this extra ordinary power has to be exercised sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist.
Contd/-
25
CC No. 30/99 Since, complainant (PW6) has stated in his complaint Ex. PW6/A that DVB officials Kailash and Ramesh were also party to the demand of bribe and the complainant has not owned a supplementary statement and has reiterated his aforesaid stand taken in the complaint , therefore, a case is made out to summon DVB officials Kailash and Ramesh as co-accused in this case but there is a legal bar to do so, i.e. they being public servants , cannot be prosecuted without obtaining statutory sanction u/s 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 A bare reading of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 makes it clear that a mere demand or solicitation by a public servant amounts to the commission of offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. While appreciating the evidence of the complainant , I find that from the evidence of complainant (PW6) it stands established that DVB officials Kailash and Ramesh were also a party to the demand of bribe from the complainant and therefore, they are liable to be prosecuted u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 120-B of IPC and also u/s 13 (1) (d) Contd/-
26
CC No. 30/99 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 120-B of IPC after requisite statutory sanction is obtained for their prosecution. Accordingly, ACP (Administration) /ACB is directed to apply for sanction for prosecution of DVB officials Kailash and Ramesh and if, the sanction for their prosecution is granted , then to file supplementary challan in this case against DVB officials Kailash and Ramesh.
With the above said observations, this application is disposed of.



(Announced in the
open Court )                   (SUNIL GAUR)
                     Special Judge/Delhi/3.2.2007




                                                          Contd/-
                              27
CC No. 30/99
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUNIL GAUR, SPECIAL JUDGE, DELHI.
CC NO.30/99
State Versus Satish Kumar Bhalla s/o Sh. Jaswant Rai R/o B-101, Gali no. 8, Kanti Nagar Extension, Delhi FIR No. 43/95 U/s 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
P.S. Anti Corruption Branch ORDER ON SENTENCE I have heard Shri Alok Saxena Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri R.S. Singhal, Advocate for the convict Satish Kumar Bhalla (who is present in custody) on the point of sentence. 2 Ld. counsel for the convict submits that the convict is aged 55 years and is hypertensive and he has lost his wife about 5/6 years ago and has got a daughter of marriageable age and there is no one else to look after her and he has to support his old mother who is deaf and he is the only earning member of the family and is facing the agony of this case for the last 12 years and so a lenient Contd/-
28
CC No. 30/99

view on the point of sentence be taken.

3 Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor states that the convict does not deserve any leniency because there is rampant corruption amongst public servants in the Delhi Administration and to curb this evil, deterrent punishment should be imposed.

4. In judgment reported in (1997) 4 SCC 14 (Swtantar Singh V/s State of Haryana) it has been observed as under:-

''Corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post ''

5. After having heard both the sides and upon perusal of the record, I find that it is difficult to accept the prayer of the convict that a lenient view be taken in this case. Corruption as such has dangerous potentialities . A Contd/-

29

CC No. 30/99 corrupt government official is a menace to the society and once he is found guilty , he deserves no soft corner or indulgence from the Courts of law and custodial sentence of rigorous imprisonment alone would serve as a real deterrent and the conduct of the corrupt government servants deserves to be seriously deprecated and no clemency can be shown to corrupt public servants.

6. In view of the observations made above and the facts of this case, I sentence convict Satish Kumar Bhalla to undergo RI for a period of three and a half years and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand) u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo SI for a period of six months. Convict Satish Kumar Bhalla is further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of four years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousand) u/s 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo SI for a period of nine months. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently and the convict shall be entitled to benefit under section 428 Cr. P.C. Contd/-

30

CC No. 30/99

7. A duly attested copy of the judgment and this order be supplied to the convict free of costs and thereafter file be consigned to the record room. Announced in the open Court on February 05, 2007.

( SUNIL GAUR ) SPECIAL JUDGE. DELHI 5.2.2007 Contd/-