The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly gave emphasis to this aspect of the prosecution version that at the crucial time, when the trap was laid and the accused was about to be apprehended, he slipped away from the office of the SDM without any intimation to anyone. Therefore, neither the accused was apprehended nor the tainted money could be recovered. Now, the accused cannot be permitted to take any benefit of the circumstance by which he evaded his arrest from the spot. Apart from that this is one of those unusual cases, where the SDM himself has been examined and he has fully supported the prosecution version. The independent panch witnesses have also corroborated the prosecution version. The prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt. The conviction is accordingly upheld.
Delhi High Court
Teka Ram vs The State on 1 March, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998 IIIAD Delhi 41, 1998 CriLJ 3022, 72 (1998) DLT 581
Author: Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. This appeal arises from the judgment of Shri H.P. Bagchi, Special Judge, Delhi delivered in corruption case No. 26/76. Basic facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:
2. Accused Teka Ram was functioning as Reader in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate (for short SDM), Patel Nagar on 25.10.1975. The allegation against Teka Ram is that he was a public servant and in his discharge of official duty by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, he accepted or obtained Rs.8/- as illegal gratification other than his legal remuneration from the complainant Duli Chand through Hari Ram, co-accused, as a motive or reward for showing favour to the Complainant, Duli Chand, by getting him a licence for temporary sale of fire-works and as such had committed offences punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of Indian Penal Code.
3. According to complainant on 25.10.1975, he had gone to the Court of the S.D.M., Patel Nagar in Room No. 25, New Courts, Tis Hazari and presented his application for the grant of licence for the sale of fire-works to accused Teka Ram, who was working as Reader to the SDM Court. The accused, Teka Ram told the complainant that the date for issuance of licence had already expired. After some time the accused again called the complainant and told him that he would have to spend Rs.30/- if he wanted to have the said licence. The accused agreed to accept Rs.15/- by way of bribe from the complainant. The complainant had paid Rs.7/- and told him that he would bring the balance amount of Rs.8/- after some time. The accused then accepted the application for grant of licence. The complainant went home to bring the remaining amount of Rs.8/- to be paid to the accused. The complainant, went to the Anti Corruption Branch and gave his complaint statement, Exhibit PW-9/A which was recorded by Inspector K.L. Sethi.
4. In pursuance to the complaint of the complainant, a trap was organized. The services of Baldev Raj Arora and Narender Veer Singh Sodhi were employed to act as Panch Witnesses. In their presence, the statement of Duli Chand was recorded. He produced GC notes, one of Rs.5/- and three of Rs.1/- denomination. The GC notes were treated with a Chemical powder and a formal demonstration test was given through Baldev Raj Arora.
5. The raiding party at about 4:25 p.m. set out for the raid and reached near the Court Room of SDM, Patel Nagar. The complainant and two Panch Witnesses were sent inside the Court Room while the other members of the raiding party took position outside the Court Room. At that time, the SDM was not present in the Court. It was alleged by the complainant that on asking of Teka Ram, accused, he had paid the bribe of Rs.8/- to Hari Ram, accused who was present in the Court and who after accepting the same gave it to the Teka Ram, accused.
6. At about 4:35 p.m., Baldev Raj Arora came out of the Court Room and gave the green signal, on receipt of which rest of the raiding party went inside the Court Room. The complainant told the inspector that he had passed on the tainted money to Hari Ram, accused at the instance of Teka Ram, accused who in turn passed on the same to Teka Ram, accused and that the latter had gone towards the Retiring Room. Accused was not found in the Court Room and according to the prosecution version, he had slipped away from the Court room to avoid any unpleasant scene. Hari Ram, accused who had been acquitted by the trial court was apprehended by the Head Constable while the Inspector went inside the chamber of the SDM but he did not find Teka Ram accused anywhere. The right hand of Hari Ram was dipped in colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned its shade to pink. It was then transferred to bottle Exhibit PW-9 which was duly sealed, labelled and taken into possession vide a seizure memo. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove its case. This is one of those exceptional cases where the Presiding Officer, the SDM himself was examined as PW-1. He had fully supported the entire prosecution version.
7. Ram Prakash Gaba, PW-2 who was posted as Steno to the SDM, Patel Nagar was also examined. According to him, the application for temporary licence for fire-works was received either directly by the SDM or through the Police Station together with the report of the SHO and thereafter applicant had to deposit Rs.4/- as licence fee in Treasury.
8. Ram Kishan (PW-3), Siri Ram Sharma (PW-4), Ajmer Singh (PW-5), Constable Chander Bhan Singh (PW-6), S.K. Bhatia (PW-7) and A.K. Popli (PW-8) are formal witnesses they have also supported the prosecution case. PW-12, I.C. Tiwari, Metropolitan Magistrate, mentioned in his statement that Teka Ram accused was identified before him by the inspector.
9. The material witnesses in this case are PW-9, the complainant, Duli Chand, PW-10 Narender Veer Singh Sodhi, PW-11 Baldev Raj Arora and Inspector K.L. Sethi PW-13.
10. The accused Teka Ram denied the entire prosecution version. According to him, Duli Chand, complainant came in the Court alongwith two other persons and before handing over the licence Exhibit PW-1/A, he had asked the complainant to bring seal and stamp pad from the Ahlmad and after affixing the seal on the licence, the same was handed over to the complainant which took about 5 to 7 minutes. He stated that he remained in the court room until 4:50 p.m. and left thereafter without the permission of the Presiding Officer or any other senior officials. The other co-accused, Hari Ram was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution version and submitted that he had been falsely implicated in the case. Teka Ram, accused had produced one witness, Hari Ram PW-1 and his defense who had deposed that since November, 1996 he has been working in the Court of the SDM, Patel Nagar as Reader.
11. Mr. K.L. Sethi, Inspector PW-13 is the inspecting officer in this case, stated that he had recorded the statement of Duli Chand, the complainant who had supported the story of the prosecution in toto. On scrutiny of the entire evidence on record, the trial court arrived at a definite conclusion that the accused appellant demanded and accepted the bribe. The trial court rightly gave importance to the material circumstance of the accused Teka Ram's slipping away from the court room immediately after he had learnt about the trap. This circumstance also fully corroborate the case of the prosecution.
12. Regarding the other accused, Hari Ram, the Court arrived at the conclusion that there was no concensus of meeting of mind between two accused and that Hari Ram accused had no knowledge about the tainted money which was given to him by Duli Chand which he in turn gave to Teka Ram, accused by way of bribe (which was settled between the complainant and Teka Ram accused). According to the trial court, the knowledge of the transaction is a condition precedent to sustain the charge and the same is completely lacking from the evidence of the complainant and the two Panch Witnesses on record and consequently Hari Ram was acquitted but as far as accused Teka Ram is concerned, the trial court recorded that there is clinching, convincing, direct and circumstantial evidence on record which leads to the inescapable conclusion that Teka Ram accused had demanded and settled the bribe amount with the complainant and had accepted the same through Hari Ram co-accused. The prosecution has thus succeeded in proving the guilt of Teka Ram accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, the evidence on record does not substantiate the charges against Hari Ram beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 5(1) (d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.50 under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in default one month's R.I.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant had submitted that the trial court has gravely erred in convicting the appellant when the other accused Hari Ram who has been charged for the abetment has already been acquitted. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in a case of abetment when the accused who is charged with abetment is acquitted then the other accused cannot be convicted. In other words the trial court committed serious illegality in convicting the appellant when the prosecution version regarding abetment has been disbelieved.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Mohit Mathur submitted that the trial court on the same set of evidence has acquitted one accused and convicted the other. This approach of the trial court has led to miscarriage of justice. Mr. Mathur, also assailed the judgment of the trial court on the ground that in this case of corruption neither the accused was apprehended at the spot nor the bribe money of Rs.8/- was recovered from him. In absence of recovery, no charge can be sustained against him. Mr. Mathur, submitted that entire prosecution story is unbelievable because there was no occasion for the complainant to pay Rs.8/- to the accused because the licence in question had already been issued to him.
15. Mr. Mathur also submitted that there are material contradictions in the prosecution version and no conviction can be sustained on such a quality of prosecution evidence. He specifically pointed out that PW-1 Shri G.K. Marwaha, SDM in which he has categorically mentioned that:
"I made queries from Duli Chand personally before issuing licence".
Whereas Duli Chand, PW-9 in his statement has categorically mentioned that he did not send for Teka Ram and asked him to wait outside. Duli Chand (PW-9) had stated that no enquiry was made by the SDM and he further stated that :
"We all had left the Court room around 5:30 - 5:45 p.m."
16. The SDM had not come to the court room thereafter. This statement is specifically contradicted by the statement of the SDM who had mentioned that he remained in Court till 6:30 p.m. Mr. Mathur also submitted that the Panch Witnesses have not stated in their statement that they have seen Hari Ram giving bribe money to Teka Ram. He also submitted that in this case of abetment if the prosecution story as far as Hari Ram is disbelieved then no conviction can be made for the other accused Teka Ram.
17. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant has highlighted minor discrepancies in the prosecution version. On scrutiny of the entire evidence and other documents on record, it is difficult to find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly gave emphasis to this aspect of the prosecution version that at the crucial time, when the trap was laid and the accused was about to be apprehended, he slipped away from the office of the SDM without any intimation to anyone. Therefore, neither the accused was apprehended nor the tainted money could be recovered. Now, the accused cannot be permitted to take any benefit of the circumstance by which he evaded his arrest from the spot. Apart from that this is one of those unusual cases, where the SDM himself has been examined and he has fully supported the prosecution version. The independent panch witnesses have also corroborated the prosecution version. The prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt. The conviction is accordingly upheld.
18. Now the crucial question is whether the accused be compelled to undergo the remaining part of the sentence after almost 23 years of the incident. We can derive some guide-lines from the decided cases of the Supreme Court.
19. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of B.G.Goswami Vs. Delhi Administration, 1973 SCC (Crl) 796, observed as under:-
"Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining the question. In modern civilised societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentence both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after seven years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and has to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs.200/- to Rs.400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same."
20. This case has been followed in number of subsequent judgments by Supreme Court and various other courts. In Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of M.P., , while referring to the judgment of
B.G.Goswami Vs. Delhi Administration (supra), the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, in a case where the accused was convicted under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
21. In the instant case, the incident had taken place about 23 years. The appellant has undergone the rigmarole of a criminal trial and trauma of criminal proceedings for almost 23 years. He has already served out part of the sentence and paid the fine imposed on him.
22. In my considered opinion in the instant case the ends of justice shall be met by upholding the conviction of the appellant, however, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone.
23. This criminal appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment