Mahender Singh vs State

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 maliganise (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 Kanungo, responsible for maintenance of revenue records. He demanded Rs.5000/- as illegal

gratification from the complainant for sending the demarcation report pertaining to the land of the complainant to Tehsildar, Nazafgarh, Delhi. He

was caught red-handed accepting 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) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo RI for two years u/s 7 and RI for 5 years u/s 13(2) of PC Act and fine

vide judgment dated 19th May, 2007 and order on sentence dated 21st May, 2007.

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

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

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

witnesses, should be considered only as corroborative and, has no value although panch witness supported the prosecution carefully.

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.

The courts while considering an application for suspension of sentence has to see that the right to appeal should not become a futile exercise.

Simultaneously, Courts must see the society is not left to the mercy of criminals and legislative intent of awarding adequate punishment to corrupt

does not become a fatality. These two rights, one right of an accused and the other of the society, must be balanced. For these reasons, it is

necessary that appeals in such like cases as corruption, should be heard on priority basis and at an early date so that both the rights stands

balanced. It is also to be kept in mind that the presumption of innocence, which is there at the start of the trial, gets diluted when a person is

convicted by the trial court, in the same manner as the presumption of innocence becomes stronger when a person is acquitted by the trial court.

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

jurisdiction is the discretion vests in the court and it is required to be exercised 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 of one''s right and liberty and on the other hand the

interest of the society. 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 many of them 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 and trivial crime and has to be considered as a serious crime eating away the national

character and national wealth.

Looking into the act of the appellant, who was a Kanungo, responsible for maintenance of revenue records, demanded bribe from the

complainant for sending the demarcation report pertaining to the land of the complainant, I consider that it is not a fit case for suspension of

sentence. The application is hereby dismissed.

Crl. Appeal No. 366/2007

List this appeal for hearing on 25th March, 2008.