Jai Bhagwan vs State (NCT of Delhi)

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—The menace of corruption has to be looked into proper perspective. Corruption cannot be considered as a trivial

offence. When a defense Inspector, responsible for approving the quality of components of tanks, armed carrier and other vehicles deployed

during war time, turns corrupt and procure inferiors quality of components, the persons who die because of this corruption are the innocent soldiers

who go to the war front fighting for the nation. When an inspector, responsible for removing squatters from the roads, turns corrupt and accepts

bribe/hafta from the squatters, driving and walking on the roads becomes nightmare resulting into accidental deaths and loss of lives which could be

saved had the person not been corrupt. When a health inspector, responsible for the checking of food adulteration or food being sold in open,

turns corrupt and accepts bribe, the person who fell prey to his corruption are those poor persons who eat unhygienic food. When overloaded

trucks go beyond control of drivers killing someone, you must be reminded of traffic inspector who turned corrupt and allowed to move the truck,

when you find patients having died in hospital because of spurious drugs, you must feel the invisible hands of many involved in the spurious drug

racket. When you find that the flat allotted to you has already been sold without your knowledge, you must remember a corrupt Babu in local

development authority. When you find no action is taken against criminals despite FIRs, you must be reminded of corrupt police inspector.

Tentacles of devil of corruption can be seen everywhere. It has crippled and reduced to naught many a schemes run for the benefit of poor,

resulting into death by starvation and malnutrition of the downtrodden.

Prevention of Corruption Act was intended to curb this evil of corruption and bribe, but experience shows that corruption has increased

manifold day in and day out and now India is considered one amongst the most corrupt nations. Supreme Court in State of M.P. and Ors. v. Ram

Singh 2000 SCC (Cri.) 886 observed as under:

Corruption in a civilized society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to malignancies (sic) the polity of the country

leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus

is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a

dreaded communicable diseased is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only

anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest,

it is likely to cause turbulence - shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society.

In the instant case, the appellant was a sanitary inspector, responsible for checking the food being sold in open. He visited the complainant, who

was selling boiled eggs as squatter opposite Charat Palika Hospital Moti Bagh and demanded bribe. On a complaint lodged by

complainant/squatter, he was caught red-handed accepting the bribe. Trial proceeded and he was convicted by the learned trial court u/s 7 of

Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, ""the Act"") and u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and was convicted to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a term of two years and fine u/s 7 and 3 years RI and fine u/s 13(1)(d) of the Act vide judgment dated 30th August and order of

sentence dated 31st August, 2007.

This application has been preferred by the appellant for suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal. The counsel for the appellant

argued that since the sentence awarded to the appellant was a fixed sentence, this Court should, as a normal rule, when appeal is preferred,

suspend the sentence and rejection of application should be an exception relying on Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and Others Vs. State of

Gujarat,

The other argument advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant is that the complainant in this case did not support the prosecution fully and

he was cross examined by Additional Public Prosecutor. Since the complainant was prime witness, the testimony of other witnesses i.e. panch

witnesses, should only be considered as corroborative having no value in the wake of complainant turning hostile.

The next argument advanced by learned Counsel for the appellant is that where the sentence was three years or less, the appellant has a right to

be released on bail. In case of 3 years sentence, the trial court has been given powers to give interim bail to the appellant and when trial court has

released the appellant on interim bail, this Court should only confirm the bail granted to by the trial court.

A perusal of the judgment in case of Kiran Kumar and Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai would show that in both the cases, the Hon''ble Supreme

Court observed that the suspension of sentence should be considered liberally and the approach should be different in case of fixed period of

sentence and life imprisonment. However, the Supreme Court further observed that in serious offences instead of considering application of

suspension of sentence, endeavor should be made to dispose of the appeal on merits at an early date otherwise the valuable right of appeal would

be an exercise in futility by efflux of time.

The manner in which the criminal justice system works in this country, ensures that trial takes many a years in concluding. Normally, the accused

is granted bail in all corruption cases during trial, either before his arrest or after arrest or after few days of his custody. After trial, the appeals take

much more number of years and the entire process, starting from the date of complaint till disposal of the appeal before the highest court, takes

around 20- 25 years. After 20-25 years, when a person is finally declared as a convict by the highest court, the Court finds that at the time of

commission of crime he was a bachelor or middle aged and by the time conviction is finally upheld, he has become a middle aged person, married,

having children and is suffering from various ailments, it is a normal thing that ''trial'' of the person is considered a period of ''agony'' undergone by

the him and this ''agony'' is considered by the courts as part of the sentence and the real sentence awarded is the period of imprisonment already

undergone, which may be a few days or a few months. We tend to forget the ''agony'' of society and the fate of complainant who dared complain.

The entire purpose of the Legislature of sentencing the offender stands defeated and that is the one reason why the wages of corruption are

considered more attractive in this country. A corrupt man is not complained against because the giver of bribe and taker of bribe both gain

advantage. It is only in rare cases where the taker of bribe becomes so bold that he starts demanding bribe without giving any unlawful advantage,

even for lawful works that the giver of bribe approaches the law machinery. The person caught is not always a first- timer corrupt. He may have

been indulging into corrupt activities for a long number of years. It is to his advantage that the trial is prolonged, hearing of appeals is prolonged. He

spends a fraction of the amount, earned by corrupt practices on, litigations and professionals to see that ultimately he makes criminal justice system

as a laughing stock. In this process, the entire legislative purpose of punishing a corrupt, stands defeated.

A perusal of Section 389 Cr.P.C would show that suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal is not the absolute right of the convict. The

discretion to suspend the sentence vests in the court and it is required to be exercised judicially keeping in view all facts and circumstances and the

nature of offence. The Court has to exercise this discretion with utmost care and caution, balancing one''s right and liberty on one hand and the

interest of the society on the other. It is for this reason that despite the presumption of innocence being there during appeal, the convicts in offences

like murder, ransom kidnapping, culpable homicide, rape etc. are not normally granted bail, though some of them may get acquitted after final

appeal. In the criminal justice system which we have, delays have entered for various reasons and is a fact of life. Merely because there is delay in

hearing of appeals, every person convicted by the trial court is not let loose on the society.

I consider corruption cannot be looked upon an ordinary crime and has to be considered as serious crime eating away the national character

and national wealth.

Looking in the act of the appellant, who was a sanitary inspector responsible for guarding the health of the public, accepted bribe form the

squatter selling open food, I consider that it is not a fit case for suspension of sentence. The application is hereby dismissed.

Crl.Appeal.No.560/2007

List this appeal for hearing on 20th March, 2008.