Delhi District Court
State vs . Inderaj Singh on 31 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH SIDDHARTHA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PCACT)06, TIS HAZARI, DELHI
Case ID No. 02401R0627222006
CC No. 73/09
STATE Vs. INDERAJ SINGH
S/o Sh. Hari Singh
R/o H. No. 494, Gali No. 9,
Vill. Jagatpur, Delhi9.
FIR No. 50/05
U/S 7, 13(1) (d) & 13 (2) of POC Act
Date of Institution : 25.07.2006
Judgment reserved on : 30.05.2011
Judgment delivered on : 31.05.2011
JUDGMENT
1. As per prosecution, on 29.11.2005, a written complaint was filed against one Inderaj Singh for demanding bribe of Rs. 400/ from the complainant for issuing certified documents in respect of complainant's client. The complaint was recorded by AC Branch official Insp. K. S. Pathania (RO) in the presence of panch witness Babu Lal.
2. The complainant brought 4 GC notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/ each and produced the same before the RO. The RO recorded the numbers of the said GC notes in the preraid report. After getting the said State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 1/22 GC notes checked by the panch witness, demonstration of the purpose of application of phenolphthalein and its reaction with sodium carbonate was given. The characteristics of both the powders were explained to the complainant as well as panch witness.
3. Instructions were given to the complainant to keep the panch witness close to him and to talk and transact with accused in such a manner so that panch witness would be able to overhear and see the transaction. He was also instructed to give the bribe money to the accused only on specific demand.
4. The panch witness was also instructed to remain close to the complainant and overhear the conversation between complainant and accused and also observe the incident and only after the demand and acceptance of money by the accused, he should give a signal to the raiding party by moving his right hand over his head.
5. Thereafter Raid officer, in the presence of panch witness, handed over those tainted GC notes to the complainant who kept the same in the upper left pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, hands of panch witness were got washed with the soap and water while the solution was thrown away. The RO recorded pre raid proceedings.
State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 2/22
6. A raiding team was constituted consisting of complainant, panch witness, RO Insp. K. S. Pathania, IO Insp. Meher Chand and some other AC Branch officials. At about 2:00 PM, the raiding team left AC Branch in a Government vehicle for SubRegistrarIII office, Asaf Ali Road and reached there at about 2:40 PM. The vehicle was parked at some distance.
7. The complainant and panch witness were again reminded about the instruction given to them in the preraid proceedings and they were sent towards SubRegistrarIII office while members of the raiding team followed them by maintaining reasonable distance while IO Insp. Meher Chand and driver were left in the vehicle.
8. At about 2:50 PM, complainant and panch witness entered SRIII office and went towards right side room. At about 3:00 PM, panch witness came out of the room and gave preassigned signal, at which, the raiding team went towards the said room where panch witness pointed towards accused Inderaj Singh as the same person who had demanded Rs. 400/ from the complainant and had kept the same in his right hand.
9. The Raid Officer disclosed his identity as an AC Branch official to the accused Inderaj Singh and challenged him. RO also asked the accused that he was to be searched and if he wanted he could take the search of the members of the raiding party but the accused declined to do so. State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 3/22
10. On the direction of RO, panch witness recovered the bribe money of Rs.400/ from the left hand of the accused. The recovered GC notes were tallied with the serial numbers recorded in pre raid report. Thereafter, the recovered GC notes were taken in possession vide seizure memo. The documents given to the complainant were also recovered from the right hand of accused which were taken in possession.
11. Left hand wash of accused Inderaj Sigh was taken in the colorless solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink. The same was transferred to two clean glass bottles and sealed with the seal of KSP.
12. Sealed bottles containing hand wash and sample seal were taken in possession vide seizure memo. Accused Inderaj Singh was arrested. Thereafter Raid Officer prepared post raid report.
13. IO Insp. Meher Chand was called to the spot and exhibits/case property as well as accused Inderaj Singh, copy of raid report and related documents were handed over to him for investigation.
14. The case was registered and chargesheet filed and charges were framed.
State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 4/22
15. As per the charge, on 29.11.2005, accused Inderaj Singh being posted in SRIII office, Asaf Ali Road as LDC and as such being a public servant demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 400/ from complainant Sunil Choudhary for issuing certified documents (GPA & SPA) in respect of complainant's client Satish Kumar and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
16. Secondly, on the abovesaid date, time and place, accused Inderaj Singh being employed as above public servant obtained Rs. 400/ from the above complainant as a pecuniary advantage for himself by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing his position as such public servant and thereby he committed an offence of criminal misconduct as specified under Section 13(1) (d) and punishable u/s 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
17. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
18. In evidence, the prosecution had examined ten witnesses to substantiate the charge while the accused had examined one witness in his defence.
19. I have heard the arguments on behalf of prosecution wherein Sh. Abdul Aleem, Addl. PP states that the prosecution has been successful in State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 5/22 leading evidence and bringing cogent evidence to show that there was a demand as per the complaint Ex.PW4/A and the testimony of witness PW4 complainant corroborated by the panch witness PW6 which also manifests a demand of bribe and further the chemical analysis of the hand wash taken by the RO PW10 corroborates acceptance. The law provides mere demand and consequential acceptance of the bribe amount sufficient to inculpate and further once the bribe amount reaches the hand of the accused subsequent to his demand, it is up to the accused to justify the reaching of the same in his custody. The accused has been unsuccessful in discharging the said onus and as such he be held guilty for the offence charged.
20. Sh. R. S. Singhal, Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, has argued vehemently that mere acceptance of the GC notes is not sufficient to inculpate the accused in as much as the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and the testimony of panch witness also lacks certainty. The law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court discounts the fact that money can be foisted on the accused perforce when the accused had no intention of accepting the bribe as has been testified by DW1.
21. Before we delve into culpability of the accused in the commission of the offence, it has to be determined whether the requisite sanction for his prosecution had been obtained by the prosecution. The prosecution in this regard had examined Sh. AB Shukla, PW7, Secretary Law & Personal State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 6/22 Arunachal Pradesh who has testified that on 18.4.06 he was posted as Deputy Commissioner Distt. Central when a request had been received alongwith the material collected during investigation from AC Branch. The same was placed before him for according sanction to prosecute accused Inderaj Singh LDC who was working as dealing assistant in the office of sub registrar, Asaf Ali Road. The witness had perused the copies of FIR, Rukka, raid report, site plan, chemical examination report, statement u/s 161 Cr.PC and after applying his mind and considering the facts and circumstances of the case that offence u/s 7 and 13 of the POC Act had been committed and being competent authority to remove accused from service had accorded sanction for his prosecution u/s 19 of POC Act vide sanction order Ex.Pw7/A on which the signatures of the witness are appended. No substantial challenge has been made as regards the authenticity and competence of the witness in according sanction in as much as the only challenge that has been made is that it was without due application of mind. The witness has testified that he had gone through the relevant documents placed before him and he had applied his mind. After examining the facts and circumstances of the case, he was of the view that the accused Inderaj Singh should be prosecuted in this case.
22. Sanction U/s 19 of POC Act is not an idle formality, but it is a sacrosanct act as the future and career of a Government official is involved. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan Prajapati Vs. State of U.P., (2000) State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 7/22 10 SCC43 has stressed that the person according sanction should be a competent person and a sanction accorded by the person not competent to grant the same cannot be held to be a valid sanction. This fact has not been challenged by the accused.
23. Any case instituted without a proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. What the court has to see is whether or not the Sanctioning Authority, at the time of according sanction, was competent to accord sanction and whether it had applied its mind. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality or an acrimonious exercise but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to Government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution can be launched against the public servant concerned.
24. Sanction lifts the bar for prosecution. Sanction is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent but is not a shield for the guilty. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the Sanctioning Authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the Sanctioning Authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the Sanctioning Authority had considered the evidence and other State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 8/22 material, placed before it. This fact can also be established by the extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the Sanctioning Authority.
25. Since the validity of "sanction" depends on the application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon the decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever and was under an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution.
26. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhisham Kumar Vs. State 1999 (iii) AD (Delhi) 177, had also applied the test as prescribed in the enunciation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Iqbal State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 9/22 Ahmed Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1979 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 113 (SC) and the view taken by the Supreme Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622 (supra) , we can say that a valid and tenable sanction had been accorded. Hence, the prosecution can follow.
27. PW4 Sunil Choudhary, lodged a complaint in AC Branch with Inspector KS Pathania before a public person Babu Lal and has testified as such that as per the complaint, on 22/23.11.05 an application had been moved in the office of sub registrarIII for certified copy of property document. The dealing assistant Inderaj (identified as accused) used to call the complainant almost daily for about 45 days but did not supply document of property of Satish Kumar Malik. On 28.11.05, the accused demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 400/ for supplying the certified copies of property in question. The accused had called the complainant to collect the document alongwith bribe amount on 29.11.05.
28. It is further testified that the complainant produced Rs.400/ in the denomination of Rs. 100/ each before the RO who recorded the numbers of GC notes in pre raid report Ex.Pw4/B and after numbers had been noted phenolphthalein powder was applied to GC notes and a demonstration of the consequences of touching the said GC notes was given. The RO instructed the complainant and panch witness to remain close to each other and to State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 10/22 observe and hear the transaction and on completion of same a pre assigned signal be given. Pink solution had been thrown. Pre raid report was drawn.
29. At about 2.15 pm, Insp. KS Pathania and other raiding members alongwith complainant and Panch witness left AC Branch for sub Registrar office. At about 2.45 pm the raiding team reached there and leaving the vehicle the raiding team took suitable position around the sub registrar office. The complainant and the panch witness entered the office where the accused was present in the record room. The accused asked complainant if he had brought the settled amount and after the reply in affirmative the GC notes were taken out from the pocket and extended towards the accused who obtained the same in his left hand and thereafter two sets of documents were taken out from the drawer and given to complainant. On preassigned signal the raiding team apprehended the accused. Search of the accused was taken subsequent to offer of his own search by the RO, to which the accused declined. 4 GC notes were recovered from the left hand of accused. The numbers were tallied and on being found to be identical the same were taken in possession vide memo Ex.Pw4/C. The hand wash of accused was taken in solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink and same were preserved as LHWI, LHWii. The statement of complainant and panch witness were recorded. The raid proceedings were drawn subsequent to the interrogation of the panch witness and complainant. Insp. Mehar Chand was called to the spot to whom the case property and accused were handed over. The case State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 11/22 property has been identified.
30. The witness was cross examined by the counsel for accused who has testified that on 28.11.05 the complainant met KK Anand, Sub Registrar who had asked the complainant to contact accused Inderaj.
31. Barring the fact that the hand wash and proceedings had taken place at AC Branch, no substantial challenge has been placed.
32. Sh.Babu Lal Gujar PW6 has been examined to corroborate the testimony of Pw4. It is testified that on 29.11.05 while on panch duty in the AC Branch a complaint had been lodged by the complainant Sunil Choudhary PW4 with inspector KS Pathania., the complaint is Ex.Pw4/A on which the signatures of panch witness are appended. After narration of entire raid proceeding it is testified that on entering the sub registrar office the accused Inderaj (identified by witness) inquired from complainant whether he had brought the settled amount at which the complainant took out the tainted GC notes from his pocket and gave it in left hand of accused and the accused gave certain document after taking out same from drawer of table. Predetermined signal was given by the panch witness on which the Raid Officer accosted the accused for accepting the bribe. The serial numbers of GC notes were tallied with pre raid report. Hand wash of the accused was also taken which gave positive result. The documents are State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 12/22 Ex.P8 also taken in possession vide memo Ex.P4G. Accused was arrested. His personal search was taken. The case property has been identified by the witness. The GC notes were identified as Ex.Pw1 to Ex.P4. The sealed bottles of the residue are Ex.P2 /1 to Ex.P2/2.
33. The witness has admitted in the cross examination that he had been assigned as panch witness a number of times but had been involved in a raid for the first time. The witness has denied the suggestion that the accused did not accept the money when the same was offered to him. The witness has also admitted in his testimony that the hand wash was taken in his presence.
34. The testimony of PW6 the panch witness, fully supports the case of the prosecution and corroborates the testimony of PW4, the complainant herein, in as much as no doubt can be raised as to the veracity of the complaint or the testimony of the complainant as the same has been vouched and corroborated by PW6 the panch witness who is an independent witness in the present case.
35. As per the evidence of the prosecution in the testimonies of Pw4 and PW6 the testimony of the panch witness corroborates the testimony of PW4 the complainant in its vital particulars in as much as the demand by the accused as to what had been settled and thereafter acceptance of the same State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 13/22 and subsequent recovery of the GC notes from the accused, is sufficient to inculpate the accused u/s 7 & 13 of the POC Act. The law requires it and the prosecution has been successful in leading cogent evidence to prove the same. In V. D. Jhingan Vs. State of UP, AIR 1966 SC page 1762 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"where in any trial of an offence punishable u/s 161 or Section 165 IPC it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained, or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in the said Section 161 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate."
"It was held by this court in Dhanvantari Balwantrai Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964, SC 575 that in order to raise the presumption under this subsection what the prosecution has to prove is that the accused person has received "gratification other than legal remuneration" and when it is shown that he has received a certain sum of money which was not a legal remuneration, then the condition prescribed by this section is satisfied State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 14/22 and the presumption thereunder must be raised. It was contended in that case that the mere receipt of any money did not justify the raising of the presumption and that something more than the mere receipt of money had to be proved. The argument was rejected by this Court and it was held that the mere receipt of the money was sufficient to raise a presumption under the subsection. A similar argument was addressed in C. I. Emden Vs. State of UP, AIR 1960 SC 548. In rejecting that argument this Court observed:
"If the word 'gratification' is construed to mean money paid by way of bribe then it would be futile or superfluous to prescribe for the raising of the presumption. Technically, it may no doubt be suggested that the object which the statutory presumption serves on this construction is that the Court may then presume that the money was paid by way of a bribe as a motive or reward as required by Section 161 of the Code. In our opinion this could not have been the intention of the Legislature in prescribing the statutory presumption u/s 4(1)"
This court proceeded to state:
"It cannot be suggest ed that the relevant clause in Section 4(1) which deals with the acceptance of any valuable thing should be interpreted to impose upon the prosecution an obligation to prove not only that the valuable thing has been received by the accused but that State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 15/22 it has been received by him without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. The plain meaning of this clause undoubtedly requires the presumption to be raised whenever it is shown that the valuable thing has been received by the accused without anything more. If that is the true position in respect of the construction of this part of Section 4(1) it would be unreasonable to hold that the word 'gratification' in the same clause imports the necessity to improve not only the payment of money but the incriminating character of the said payment. It is true that the Legislature might have used the word 'money' or 'consideration' as has been done by the relevant section of the English statute;...."
36. The settled law afford an opportunity to the accused to discharge this onus by leading evidence and satisfying through preponderance of probability in favor of his case.
37. The evidence that has been led through PW4 the complainant and PW6, a cogent and unequivocal evidence has come on the record whereby the accused had in fact demanded and accepted the bribe amount and the same was recovered from him. That as per, Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of AP Vs. R. Jeevaratnam, AIR 2005, SC 4095 the plea of the accused can be negated that the money was recovered from over the almirah where the same had been placed by the complainant. In the cited case a plea State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 16/22 had been taken that the money was placed in the brief case when the accused had gone to the bathroom but the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not give much credence to the stand taken by the accused as the same were recovered from the custody of the accused.
38. The case against the accused should be proven by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt as the very livelihood of the accused is at stake and a public servant being vulnerable to the harassment has to be given protection. But the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount has been proven by the complainant and an independent witness (PW6) which is further corroborated by circumstantial evidence consistent with the guilt of the accused and not consistent with his innocence.
39. As regards to the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 119, State of West Bengal Vs. Kailash Chandra Pandey that :
"What is material is the acceptance of money by the accused which is more than apparent from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the money was recovered from the accused and the accused's hand which accepted the currency notes was washed and the hand was turned into pink color water and likewise the accused's pant pocket which was washed, the water also turned into pink. Therefore, State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 17/22 from the chain of circumstances, the prosecution story stands fully substantiated. Consequently, acquittal of accused was unjustified."The definition of demand had earlier been elaborated in Ram Krishan & Anr. vs. State of Delhi AIR 1956 SC 476 (1) It is enough if by abusing his position as a public servant a man obtains for himself any pecuniary advantage entirely irrespective of motive or reward for showing favour or disfavour. No doubt, to a certain extent the ingredients of the two offence are common. But to go further and contend that the offence as defined in Cl.(d) does not come within the meaning of bribery is to place too narrow a construction on the subclause.
One may accept money that is offered or solicit payment of a bribe, or extort the bribe by threat or coercion; in each case, he obtains a pecuniary advantage by abusing his position as a public servant. The word "obtains' is used in Ss.161 and 165, Penal Code. The other word "corrupt or illegal means" find place in S.162. Apart from "corrupt and illegal means" we have also the words "or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant".
If a man obtains a pecuniary advantage by the abuse of his position, he will be guilty under subcl.(d). Section 161, 162 and 163 refer to a motive or a reward for doing or State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 18/22 forbearing to do something showing favour or disfavour to any person, or for inducing such conduct by the exercise of personal influence. It is not necessary for an offence under cl.(d) to prove all this. It is enough if by abusing his position as a public servant a man obtains for himself any pecuniary advantage, entirely irrespective of motive or reward for showing favour or disfavour.
40. The law as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has exclusively laid down in B. Noha vs. State of Kerala & Anr. in Crl. Appeal no.1122/06 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.952/06) that : "When it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of the money, there is no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence, the demand or the motive''.
41. In Madhukar Bhaskar Rao Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 571 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that : "The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted "as motive or reward" for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word "gratification" need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 19/22 presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like "gratification or any valuable thing". If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word 'gratification' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to be public servant who received it".
Earlier the same principal was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Narsinga Rao.
vs. State of AP (2001) 1 SCC 691. It is not the case of the accused that the said amount was received by him as the amount which he was legally entitled to receive or collect from PW5. It was held in State of AP Vs. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy 2000 (9) SCC 752 , that when the amount is found to have passed to the public servant the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification. That burden was not discharged by the accused herein.
42. Once the tainted GC notes were recovered from the accused Inderaj Singh and the chemical analysis of his hands gave positive results of the presence of phenolphthalein proving the fact that the phenolphthalein coated GC notes had reached the hands of the accused. The onus shifts to State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 20/22 the accused even though not in strict terms to discharge as to how the said GC notes reached the hands of the accused. It was incumbent on the accused to discharge the onus that he was entitled to the said GC notes. The accused had failed to discharge the said onus, accordingly the prosecution succeeds in fastening the guilt on the accused for demand and acceptance of bribe.
43. After the denial of his culpability in the offence in the statement made u/s 313 Cr.PC, the accused had examined Kamal Prakash, DW1, who had stated that he had observed the complainant placing the GC notes over the almirah and thereafter, apprehension of the accused by the police. However, the testimony of the said witness does not inspire any confidence and as such can be negated.
44. An impeccable evidence as has been brought on record showing the demand of bribe amount by the accused in the presence of panch witness PW6 and further confirmed by the RO PW10 Insp. K. S. Pathania of the acceptance of the same by the accused and his hand wash testing positive for the presence of phenolphthalein powder, it can safely be said that the accused had demanded and accepted bribe amount and further corroborating this fact is the testimony of PW10 who had taken the hand wash of the accused which gave positive result of acceptance of tainted GC notes and the recovery of identifiable notes given as bribe.
State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 21/22
45. In view of the said fact the prosecution has been successful inculpating the accused under the provision of section 7 & 13 (1) (d) of the POC Act. I accordingly, hold the accused guilty of the offence as charged herein above.
To come up for order on sentence.
Announced in the open court
today on 31st May, 2011 (RAKESH SIDDHARTHA)
SPECIAL JUDGE (PCACT)06
TIS HAZARI, DELHI
State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 22/22
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH SIDDHARTHA,
SPECIAL JUDGE (PCACT)06, TIS HAZARI, DELHI
Case ID No. 02401R0627222006
CC No. 73/09
STATE Vs. INDERAJ SINGH
S/o Sh. Hari Singh
R/o H. No. 494, Gali No. 9,
Vill. Jagatpur, Delhi9.
FIR No. 50/05
U/S 7, 13(1) (d) & 13 (2) of POC Act
Judgment delivered on : 31.05.2011
Order on Sentence announced on : 08.07.2011
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. When corruption was sought to be eliminated from the polity all possible stringent measures are to be adopted within the bounds of law. One such measure is to provide condign punishment. Parliament measured the parameters for such condign punishment and in that process wanted to fix a minimum sentence of imprisonment for giving deterrent impact on other public servants who are prone to corrupt deals. That was precisely the reason why the sentence was fixed as 7 years and directed that even if the said period of imprisonment need not be given the sentence shall not be less than the imprisonment for one year. Such a legislative insistence is State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 23/22 reflection of Parliament's resolve to meet corruption cases with very strong hand and to give signals of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of sentencing of corrupt public servants. All public servants were warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences. If on the other hand any public servant is given the impression that if he succeeds in protracting 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 afraid its fallout would afford incentive to public servants who are susceptible to corruption to indulge in such nefarious practices with impunity. Increasing the fine after reducing the imprisonment to a nominal period can also defeat the purpose as the corrupt public servant could easily raise the fine amount through the same means. (Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000 (8) SCC 571)
2. I have heard Sh. Abdul Aleem, Ld. APP for the State and Sh. R. S. Singhal, Advocate for the convict (who is on bail) on the point of sentence.
3. Learned counsel for the convict submits that convict is of mature age who has six children and a wife who requires his presence for care and support. It is also stated that the convict is the only bread earner in the family and as such a lenient view be taken on the point of sentence. Learned PP for the State states that convict does not deserve any leniency because the State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 24/22 convict has not only sought personal aggrandisement but has also brought disrepute to the public service, this has to be curbed from the public life so as to cleanse the society of this menace by deterrent means.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swtantar Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1997 4 SCC 14 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. On perusal of the record and on taking note of the enunciation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as above, I find it expedient and in the interest of justice that keeping in view the condition the convict is placed with a large family to take care of and the nature of the offence and the quantum of amount requires a sedate view.
6. Corruption is all pervading and it is the public service that has to manifest honesty and diligence in its functioning so as to give a clean society. Lest the public service degenerates and become a cauldron of State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 25/22 corruption, the courts have to step in and send a message that the society shall not endure this degeneration.
7. Keeping in view the fact and circumstances of this case, I sentence Inderaj Singh to undergo RI for a period of one year with a fine of Rs..2500/ u/s 7 of POC Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo SI for a period of one month. The convict is further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year with fine of Rs.2500/ U/s 13(1)(d) punishable U/s 13(2) of POC Act and in default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo SI for a period of one month. Both the sentence shall run concurrently and the convict shall be entitled to benefit u/s 428 Cr.PC.
8. A duly attested copy of the judgment and this order be supplied to the convict free of costs and thereafter file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court (RAKESH SIDDHARTHA) th today on 8 July, 2011 SPECIAL JUDGE (PCACT)06 TIS HAZARI, DELHI State Vs. Inderaj Singh Page No. 26/22