Wednesday, 31 October 2012

Courts have duty that anti­ corruption laws has to be interpreted in such a fashion so as to strengthen the fight against corruption.


   Today, corruption in our country
not only poses a grave danger  to  the
concept of constitutional governance,
it also  threatens  the  very  foundation
of Indian democracy and the Rule of
Law.  The magnitude of corruption in
our   public   life   is   incompatible   with
the   concept   of   a   socialist,   secular
democratic   republic.   It   cannot   be
disputed   that   where   corruption
begins,     all   rights   end.   Corruption
devalues   human   rights,   chokes
development and undermines  justice,
liberty, equality, fraternity which are
the   core   values   in   our   preambular
vision.     Therefore,   the   duty   of   the
Court is that any anti­corruption law
has to interpreted and worked out in
such   a   fashion   as   to   strengthen   the
fight against  corruption.    That  is  to
say   in   a   situation   where   two
constructions   are   eminently
reasonable,   the   Court   has   to   accept
the   one   that   seeks   to   eradicate
corruption  to  the  one which seeks  to
perpetuate it. 

ORDER ON SENTENCE:
(C.B.I. Vs. Bangaru Laxman) 

Dated : 28th April2012

      ­:­   IN THE COURT OF   SH. KANWAL JEET ARORA  ­:­

                      SPECIAL JUDGE : C.B.I. (P.C.ACT)
               DWARKA COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.            
                     
                    Under sec.   :        9 of Prevention of 
           Corruption Act, 1988.
In the matter of:­
CBI VS. BANGARU LAXMAN

ORDER ON SENTENCE :­ 

1. Character   or   class   is   not   made   in   crisis,
rather it is exhibited.  It is the erosion of the moral character
of individuals in particular and society in general and lack of 

national interest, which has led to the large scale corruption

adversely affecting the social, spiritual, political, economical,
educational and moral values of our nation.
2. The wisdom in the say “Crime never pays”
is belied by the factual realities of today.  The crime scenario
in our country is distressingly disturbing,  as it has shattered
hopes of both the plebeian and intellectual society about the
possible rejuvenation of a value based society. 
3.    The   problem   of   large­scale   and   rampant
corruption,   more   particularly,   the   political   corruption   is
weakening   the   political   body   and   damaging   the   supreme
importance of law governing the society.
4. Present   case   of   “political   corruption”
involves  Bangaru Laxman,  the  convict  herein,    who  at  the
relevant point of time was President of a political party which 
  
was the largest constituent of the then NDA Government.  He
was convicted vide my judgement dated 27
th
 April 2012.  
5. I have heard Dr.Padmini Singh, Ld.Special
Public Prosecutor  for  CBI  and Sh.Sunil Kumar, Ld.  Senior
Advocate  for  the  convict  on  point  of  sentence.    I have  also
heard the convict on the quantum of sentence. 
6. Ld.Special   PP   for   CBI   relying   upon   the
observations   made   by   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   on   rampant
corruption in our country, in a case titled “Dr.Subramaniam
Swami Vs. Dr.Manmohan Singh” reported as 2012 Crl.L.J
1519, has prayed for the maximum sentence. 
7. On   the   other   hand,   Ld.Senior   Counsel,
appearing for the convict had submitted that sentence should
be laced with mercy.   He contended relying upon case titled
“Santa Singh  Vs. State of Punjab” reported as (1976) 4 
   C.C.No: 01 / 2011                                                                                                                        
SCC 190, that the court has not only to see the offence, but
also   the   age,   family,   sobriety   and   emotional   and   mental
condition of the offender.  He contended that the convict had
clean   and   unblemished   record   of   public   life   of  almost   four
decades.  He further contended that the present conviction is
the   only   aberration   in   his   otherwise   clean   and   clear
antecedents.   He contended  that  the convict had undergone
“by­pass surgery”  two years back and  is also suffering  from
diabetes. Ld.Defence Counsel has prayed for a lenient view. 
8. I   have   considered   the   rival   contentions
advanced  and   have  perused  the  precedents  relied   upon.    I
have   also   gone   through   the   medical   record   of   the   convict
submitted during the course of arguments. 
9. Sentencing is an important part of criminal
administration  of justice.  Judicial discretion plays  a pivotal
role  in  sentencing.    The  object  for  which,   “sentence”   is 
  
imposed is not only to punish the convict for an unlawful act
committed by him. But also,    it  is  imposed to make  it clear
that   the  society   as  such,   denounces   the  sort   of   conduct   in
which the offender was involved.  It is also to deter the other
persons from committing the similar offence.  
10. The   essence   of   sentencing   thus   is   the
balancing of interests of community on one hand and that of
the   accused   and   his   family   on   the   other,     within   the
framework of law.   
11. Although   in   the   precedent   relied   upon   by
Ld.Special  PP for CBI in Dr.Subramaniam Swami's Case
(supra), the question of sentencing was not the point in issue
before   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court.   However,   I   would   like   to
mention   an   observation   of   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court,   which
epitomizes the present scenario of corruption in our country,
the same is as under :­
  
45.     Today, corruption in our country
not only poses a grave danger  to  the
concept of constitutional governance,
it also  threatens  the  very  foundation
of Indian democracy and the Rule of
Law.  The magnitude of corruption in
our   public   life   is   incompatible   with
the   concept   of   a   socialist,   secular
democratic   republic.   It   cannot   be
disputed   that   where   corruption
begins,     all   rights   end.   Corruption
devalues   human   rights,   chokes
development and undermines  justice,
liberty, equality, fraternity which are
the   core   values   in   our   preambular
vision.     Therefore,   the   duty   of   the
Court is that any anti­corruption law
has to interpreted and worked out in
such   a   fashion   as   to   strengthen   the
fight against  corruption.    That  is  to
say   in   a   situation   where   two
constructions   are   eminently
reasonable,   the   Court   has   to   accept
the   one   that   seeks   to   eradicate
corruption  to  the  one which seeks  to
perpetuate it. 
   
12. Corruption,   to   my   mind   is   worst   than
prostitution  as  the  latter might  endanger  the morals  of  an
individual,     whereas,   the   former   invariably   endangers   the
entire society. It is virulent for the nation and makes people
full of ire. However, the problem is that,  when a society which
publicly rues corruption, but privately indulges in it, then we
need  to  ask  ourselves,  do  we  really  want   a  corruption­free
society. 
13. To make our country and society corruption­
free,   is like putting a quart in a pint hole.   But howsoever,
grimmer the hope is, we still have to keep it alive to eradicate
corruption to strengthen the social, spiritual and moral spirits
of our society. 
14. If   a   country   is   to     be   corruption ­free   and
wants to be a nation of beautiful minds, then I strongly feel
that it can be achieved by providing value education to all, so 
   
that   we   can   become   responsible   citizens,     having   strong
character which when tested at the time of crisis, is exhibited.
We do not want those honest person who are honest till they
get a chance or opportunity to be dishonest. Further,  it can be
achieved by having the proper implementation of the existing
laws.
15. Here comes the  importance and role of the
courts.     The   courts   should   not   be   a   distant   abstraction
omnipotent in books only.  Courts have to act as an “activist
institution” which is cynosure of public hope. The courts will
be functional futility,   if it does not put its all guns blazing,
until the wrong is righted.
16.   Hon'ble Apex Court  in  Dr.Subramaniam
Swami's Case (supra), while reminding the other courts of
the  country   of   their   duty,  has   given  a mandate  that   anti­
corruption laws has to be interpreted in such a fashion so as to
strengthen the fight against corruption. 
  .
17. In the present case, the Convict had kept his
individual interests over and above the national interest and
has even agreed to compromise with the security and safety of
the nation.  He had agreed to help a company ie. M/s Westend
International, coming up to him for getting a supply order of
defence   related   equipments   to   Indian   Army.   The   convict
agreed to compromise with the  lives of  lakhs of the soldiers
who without fearing for their lives, fight for the nation.   He
even  in the very  first meeting with the representatives of a
company,   had  agreed  to  extend his  influence  for  getting  a
supply order in their  favor with respect to a defence related
equipment for his personal gains,  without giving it a thought
that the equipments of this company,  may or may not be of
sub­standard quality.
18. I,   am   in  respectful   disagreement   with  the
contention  of  Ld.Defence   Counsel   that  no  possible  help  for
getting the supply order from Ministry of Defence could have
been extended by the convict, as the company as well as the
  
product were fictitious, thus  no possible wrong resulted from
the act of convict, so  he be dealt with leniently. 
19. No   doubt,   the   company   ie.   M/s   Westend
International   and   the  product   ie.  HHTIs,  which   they   were
promoting were both fictitious, but this fact was only known to
the representatives of the company, who had approached the
convict  for  favor.    Convict  Bangaru Laxman had  agreed  to
exert his personal influence in favor of the fictitious company
for his personal gains by way of getting “illegal gratification”
with  the  intention  and  belief  that  the  product  for  which  a
supply order is required, is genuine.  
20. Corruption in itself is bad and in the words
of Hon'ble Supreme Court is like “cancer” for the society. Its
gravity   and   magnitude   assumes   dangerous   and   perilous
proportions,    if  the same  is done  by someone  in position  of
authority, to compromise with the defence mechanism of our
country and lives of its brave soldiers . 

21. Considering   the   gravity   and   the   impact
which his influence would have had on the lives of the soldiers
of Indian Army, had the design of convict materialized, I am of
the opinion that there are no mitigating circumstances and he
does   not   deserve   the   leniency   sought   for   him.   As   the
aggravating circumstances outscores the mitigating factors of
age and the previous medical record of the convict.  He being
President  of  a  political  party  was  supposed  to  have  shown
exemplary character to lead by example.  But that was not to
be.  Therefore the result of the path chosen by him, should be
such, so as to deter others not the tread the same.
22. Section 9 of the P.C.Act 1988 corresponds to
Section 163 of Indian Penal Code.  The punishment prescribed
under section 9  is  for a term not  less than six months   but
which may extend to a period of 5 years with fine. Whereas
under section 163 IPC, punishment was simple imprisonment
for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or both. 

23. Parliament must have had good reasons to
enhance the punishment to a minimum imprisonment of  six
months and a maximum extending to 5 years, with liability
to pay fine as well.  Obviously, cognizance has been taken of a
widespread   prevalence   of   practice   of   exertion   of   personal
influence  on public servants by people acting  to  favor  third
party, from whom they have obtained “illegal gratification”.
24. It is often said that : “the accomplice of crime
of corruption is generally our own indifference”. “Sab Chalta
hai” syndrome has led us to the present situation, where we
are, where nothing moves without an illegal consideration.
People are forced to pay for getting even the “right things done
at right time”.   It is high time to shun this attitude.   When
Parliament taking note of the grim situation has taken first
step   to   sternly   deal   with   such   persons   by   increasing   the
quantum of punishment which can be imposed, it is the turn
of the courts to follow suit,  so as to implement the will and
intention of the Legislature by interpreting the provisions of
  
Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988   as   per   the   dictates   of
Hon'ble Apex Court. 
25. Balancing   the  twin  interest  of  society  and
that of the convict, I am of the opinion that interest of justice
would be met, if the convict is sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a term of four years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1 lakh for offence under section 9 of Prevention of
Corruption.    He   is   sentenced   accordingly.  In   default  of
payment   of   fine,   the  convict   is   directed   to   undergo  simple
imprisonment for a further period of three months. 
26.    Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C is given to the
convict and the period of detention already undergone by him
during   inquiry,   investigations   and   trial,   be   set­off   against
substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on him. 
  
27. Necessary custody warrants be prepared and
copy of order on sentence, be annexed along with the warrants
for requisite compliance by the jail authorities.
28. Copy of the judgement and order on sentence
be given to the convict today itself.


                                                                           
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment