Parmeshwar Dayal vs The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

J.C.S. Rawat, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of sentence dated 18.8.2000 and 22.8.2000 respectively, passed in R.C. Case No. 12(A)/92(D) (State v. Parmeshwar Dayal) by Special Judge (CBI), Dhanbad, whereby, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 each, which shall be run concurrently. The appellant has further been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and in default of payment thereof, further to undergo R.I. for five months.

Feeling aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial court, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant before this Court.

In nutshell, the prosecution case is that the complainant, Mustafa Hussain had been working as an Assistant Cook in the Running Room, Eastern Railway, Khelari and the accused appellant, Parmeshwar Dayal had been working as a Head Clerk in the office of the Loco-Foreman, Eastern Railway, Patratu. The complainant. Mustafa Hussain fell ill from 18.2.92 to 24.6.92 and a fitness memo along with sick certificates were given in the office of Parmeshwar Dayal where, he met the accused-appellant in his office on 25.6.92 and gave a medical fitness certificate. It is the procedure that the Locomotive Inspector office would receive the said fitness certificate and would forward it to the competent authority according the period of the leave. The appellant was working in the office of the Inspector, Loco-Foreman, ER, Patratu as a head clerk. He received the said certificate in the month of June, 1992 and he demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/- from the complainant. Further, he said that he would only allow to join him duties and do the needful if a sum of Rs. 1000/- is paid. On 19.8.92, when the complainant again met with him, he demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/- for the same. The complainant instead of giving the illegal gratification to the appellant, he approached the office of S.P., CBI, Dhanbad on 31.8.92. After writing the complaint petition, he submitted the same to the S.P. concerned. The said complaint was verified by the CBI Officers, when it was found to be correct in the verification report, the report was lodged against the appellant and a Trap Proceeding was conducted. P.W.-10, R.K. Choubey was directed by the S.P., CBI to conduct a raid and P.W.-12, Dhiraj Kshetrapal was also directed to be a member of the Raiding Party. Thereafter, the raiding party came to Marar along with the CBI Personnel where more witnesses namely, Hari Shankar Choudhary, P.W.-11 and Bharat Singh, P.W.-6 were called in the guest house and pre-trap proceeding were conducted and thereafter, a sum of Rs. 1000/- after treating in Phenolphthalein powder was handed over to the complainant for handing over to the accused appellant in his office. Thereafter, the trap party along with witnesses left for Patratu on 3.9.92 to the office of the accused appellant. When the raiding party reached near the office, they found that the accused appellant was sitting in the office of Loco-Forman Patratu, Eastern Railway. The trap was arranged according to the direction of R.K. Choubey, the leader of the Raiding Party. The shadow witnesses Harishankar Choudhary, P.W.-11 and Bharat Singh, P.W.-6 were also directed to watch the proceeding of handing over the money and conversation made between the accused and the complainant. The raiding party took the position according to the direction of the Inspector, R.K. Choubey. The complainant met the accused-appellant, Parmeshwar Dayal in his office and he requested to join him in the duties but the same was refused by the appellant and the appellant stated that he would prepare his documents for joining the duties only when he would pay him a sum of Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification. Firstly, he refused to pay the money but the appellant insisted for the payment of money as illegal gratification. Since the complainant had gone there with money, he handed over the same to the appellant, when he demanded the money. The accused inquired him as to how much the money was, at that, he replied that it was Rs. 1000/-. The currency notes, which were handed over by the complainant to the appellant, were counted by the appellant and after counting the amount, kept the same in the back pocket of his pant. Immediately, thereafter, the signal was made and the raiding party alongwith the CBI Inspector reached at the spot and the accused-appellant was caught red handed and the money was recovered from the pocket of the pant of the accused-appellant and it was sealed on which the trapping team including R.K. Choubey put their signatures. The hands as well as the pocket of the pant of the accused-appellant were washed in solution, on which the colour of the solution turned into pink as the currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. Seizure memo was prepared on the spot, thereafter, the accused appellant was taken into custody and the matter was investigated by R.K. Choubey, P.W. 10 and he submitted the chargesheet in this case before the competent court.

The charges were framed against the accused-appellant to which he denied all the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses in this case, which are as follows;

P.W.- 1- Parmanand Singh, who gave the sanction for the prosecution of the accused and has proved the sanction given by him as Ext.-1 in his evidence.

P.W.-2 Kailash Prasad, who has deposed before the Court about the procedure for regularization of the leave of sickness when any person remains on such leave.

P.W.-3, Robin Sanga, he was the Assistant Mechanical Engineer, Barkakana and he has stated that he searched out the documents of resumption of duties after sick leave of the complainant, Mustafa Hussain. He searched out it thoroughly but he could hot find out any such document in his office.

P.W.-4; Mustafa Hussain, the complainant, who has proved the complaint and he has also given the evidence how the trap was arranged and how the accused appellant took the bride from him

P.W.-5; Dr. Mahesh Lal, who was the Superintendent at Patratu and has proved the sick certificates of complainant as Ext.-4 by the secondary evidence.

P.W.-6; Bharat Singh, who is the independent shadow witness of the trap party. He supported the prosecution regarding trap proceedings.

P.W.-7, Suresh Prasad, who was the loco Inspector Patratu and has deposed that the accused appellant Panneshwar Dayal was the Head Clerk in the Patratu Loco Forman Office and he never seen the complainant, Mustafa Hussain living at the quarter of accused Panneshwar Dayal when he visited the house occasionally. He has further deposed that the complainant never worked in the house of the accused appellant.

P.W.-8; Sanat Kumar Mukhopadhyay, who was the scientist of the CFSL, Kolkata. He has proved the forwarding report as Ext.-5 and his report as Ext.-6.

P.W.-9; Ram Singhashan Singh, who was posted as a Posting Clerk in the office of Loco Forman at Patratu. He was dealing with the leave of the working staff at the relevant time. He has stated that Parmeshwar Dayal, the appellant, received the fitness certificate on 19.8.92 and the same bears his signature, which was marked as Ext.-3/37. The accused appellant was the head clerk in his office.

P.W.-10; R.K. Choubey, who was the investigating officer of this case and he was also the leader of the raiding party.

P.W.-11, Hari Shankar Choudhary, who is stated to be an independent witness and was a shadow witness of the raid. He supported the prosecution story.

P.W.-12, Dhiraj Kshetrapal was the Sub-Inspector of the Police, CBI, Dhanbad and he was directed to verify the contents of the complaint made by the complainant and he found it to be correct. Consequently, an FIR was lodged on the basis of the said verification report.

After recording the prosecution evidences, the accused appellant was examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which, he has denied all the averments made in the evidence of the prosecution and he also denied that any trap was conducted and he took any illegal gratification from the complainant, Mustafa Hussain. He has further stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case. During the course of evidence, a suggestion has been put by way of defence that the money was in lieu of loan taken by him.

The learned trial court, after going through the entire evidence, convicted the accused-appellant, Parmeshwar Dayal and sentenced him as indicated above.

In this proceeding, for the: sake of convenience, I divide the prosecution case into two heads for dealing with the evidence bf the prosecution. The first part is the evidence regarding the verification of the complaint, which was submitted by the complainant to the S.P., CBI, Dhanbad. Dhiraj Kshetrpal, P.W.-12 was directed to verify the contents of the complaint made by the complainant, Mustafa Hussain, who has stated in his evidence that in the year 1992, he was posted as Sub-Inspector in the office of CBI, Dhanbad. He alongwith complainant, Mustafa Hussain went to Patratu and verified the contents of the complaint and in the said verification, the contents of the complaint were found to be correct, thereupon, the report was lodged. P.W.-10, R.K. Choubey was the Inspector of the CBI at the relevant time and Investigating Officer of this case and after receiving the verification report, he lodged the report, accordingly.

The second aspect of the evidence, which has been led by the prosecution is that the pre-trap formalities and how the trap was conducted; how the recovery was made and how the accused appellant took illegal gratification. The prosecution produced Mustafa Hussain, the complainant as P.W.-4, who has narrated about the entire trap proceedings; how the trap was laid down; how the demand was made; how the money was handed over to the accused-appellant, Parmeshwar Dayal and how it was recovered. P.W.-10, R.K. Choubey, the Investigating Officer has stated in his evidence that after registering the case, he along with the entire trap team consisting of P.W.-12 and other CBI Officials reached the EFCO Guest House at Marar on 2.9.92 at about 3 P.M. from Dhanbad CBI Branch. He sent a requisition to the Vigilance Officer of IFCO, Marar and requested him to make available two witnesses on 3.9.92 at about 6 AM in the morning in the said guest house. Pursuant to the said requisition, Bharat Singh, P.W.-6, who was the Security Guard in the said Company, was directed by the Security Officer on 2.9.92 to go to the guest house on 3.9.92 in the morning. Pursuant to the direction, he went to the EFCO Guest house along with Hari Shankar Choudhary, P.W.-11. He met there Shri R.K. Choubey, P.W.-10, the Investigating Officer, Inspector of the CBI and there were 3-4 other officials of the CBI. The complainant, Mustafa Hussain was also present there. The another trap witness, Hari Shankar Choudhary, P.W.-11 was also directed by his search Inspector, IFCO to be present in the guest house in the morning on 3.9.92. Apart from that, P.W.-12, Dhiraj Kshetrapal along with the complainant was present at the spot. The above witnesses, namely, P.W.-4, Mustafa Hussain, P.W.-12, Dhiraj Kshetrapal and the above shadow witnesses viz. P.W.-6 Bharat Singh and P.W. 11 - Hari Shankar Choudhary have stated in their deposition that they met the CBI Raiding Team in the guest house. The content of the complaint made by the complainant, Mustafa Hussain was read over to the witnesses and all the witnesses were introduced to each other. Thereafter, a piece of paper was treated with Phenolphthalein powder, which was handed over to him to touch. He touched the same with his hand. A solution was prepared by P.W.-10, R.K. Choubey in a glass. The hand was dipped in the solution and in consequence thereof, the colour of solution turned pink. The solution was preserved in a bottle which was sealed. The said paper, which was treated with Phenolphthalein powder, which also became pink was also sealed in an envelope for which seizure memos were prepared and on the same, the signature of all the witnesses were obtained. The complainant who had brought 1000/- rupees was also treated by the said Phenolphthalein powder and the same was returned to the complainant, Mustafa Hussain in presence of the witnesses with the direction that the said amount shall be given by him to the accused appellant then the hands were washed and the personal search of the complainant was made. The memo of the same was prepared and the signatures were made by the witnesses.

After completing tire pre-trap proceedings, the trap party along with the above witnesses proceeded to the office of the appellant-accused at Patratu. These witnesses have also given the evidence regarding the trap proceeding also. They have stated in their deposition that when they reached in the Loco-Foreman Office at Patratu, the accused-appellant was sitting in his office in his chair. The raiding party was directed to take their position according to the direction given by the Investigating Officer, P.W.-10, R.K. Choubey. On seeing the accused-appellant sitting on the chair, all the members of the raiding party took their position according to the direction of the leader of the raiding party. The trap shadow witnesses P.W.-6 - Bharat Singh and P.W.-11, Had Shankar Choudhary were directed to follow the complainant, Mustafa Hussain and to see the entire incidents at the spot. The complainant-Mustafa Hussain entered into the office of the accused appellant and the independent witnesses, Bharat Singh, P.W.-6 and Hari Shankar Choudhary, P.W.-11 also followed him. The complainant, Mustafa Hussain asked the accused-appellant, Parmeshwar Dayal to give him the joining on the duties as he has already submitted his fitness certificate to him; the accused appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification, thereupon, the complainant handed over Rs. 1000/- to the accused-appellant. The accused-appellant started counting the money and after counting, the same was kept in the right his pocket of his pant. The appellant asked the complainant, Mustafa Hussain to wait, thereupon, the signal, which was fixed by the raiding party, was given and the members of the trapping team immediately reached in the office and P.W.-10, R.K. Choubey introduced himself to be a member of the CBI and he showed his Identity Card to the accused-appellant and challenged him and the money was taken into custody. The money in question was recovered from his pocket of the pant of the accused-appellant, which was sealed in an envelop in presence of the raiding team and witnesses and their signatures were obtained in the memos. Thereafter, solutions were prepared in three separate glasses in which the hands of the accused-appellant as well as the pocket of the pant of the accused-appellant were dipped and the said solution was persevered in bottle and the memo for the same was prepared. The hands and the pocket became pink after it was dipped in the solution and ultimately the accused-appellant, Parmeshwar Dayal was taken into custody. P.W.-10, R.K. Choubey has also corroborated the above evidence.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the evidence on the point of verification by the CBI Officers about the demand of money is highly in discrepant and un-reliable. He further pointed out that P.W.-12, Dhiraj Kshetrapal has not made a proper enquiry in this matter. He only went with the complainant as he has stated in paragraphs 12 and 13 of his cross-examination. He further pointed out that unless and until he would not have visited the office of the accused-appellant at Patratu then true fact could not be ascertained about the occurrence of the complaint.

The learned Counsel for the respondent, CBI refuted the contention and contended that the pre-trap proceeding is to be conducted that no fake complaint could be filed so that on the basis and on the basis of the true complaints, the trap proceeding is to be conducted. He further pointed out that the law does not provide that any verification should be made but at the same time for the satisfaction of the Investigating Agency, the verification is made. There are two factors to be considered while considering the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The first is that a pre-investigation proceeding was conducted and thereof the FIR was lodged and the investigation proceeding was made. Under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. the Investigating Officer has no right to seek the verification of the complaint before lodging the FIR. During investigation, the veracity of the complaint can be adjust by the Investigating Agency whether the complaint is genuine or not? Whether the accused appellant is employed in the office or not and the complainant is not a fake person? When it is found that the complaint is correct, there is no law or any guidelines under law to make a preliminary enquiry before lodging the report. Even if there are certain flaws in concluding the preliminary enquiry, it would hardly effect the genesis of the case. The complainant has given a complaint disclosing an offence punishable under the provision of P.C. Act, 1988. The provisions of Criminal Procedure Code did not provide that the Investigating Officer has power to hold a preliminary enquiry before lodging the FIR. The Criminal Procedure Code provides that the complainant as soon as gives a report constituting a cognizable offence, it is imperative for him to register a case u/s 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1993. Later on, a controversy has arisen before the Hon''ble Apex Court as to whether the said preliminary enquiry before lodging the FIR is permissible or not? The controversy has been refened to a larger Bench in the case reported in 2008(14) SCC 337 (Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh). In view of the fact that whether P.W.-12, Dhiraj Kshetrapal made an enquiry at Patratu or not is immaterial and it was a summary verification and as such I do not find any force in the contention made by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the evidence on the point of demand of money is not credible and cogent. But the evidence shows that there were number of witnesses at the time of recovery, which has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W.-4, the complainant, Mustafa Hussain himself in his cross-examination. But the prosecution has not produced any of the witnesses, who were present at the time of raid, who reached at the spot immediately at the time of raid; the alleged transaction for handing over the money to the accused-appellant is extremely shaky, inconsistent and not at all credible, cogent and convincing. There is no direct evidence on the point of transaction, the evidence about the transaction is only based on getting signal but there is contradiction also on the point that who gave the signal to the raiding party; the prosecution could not fix about the transaction on which the signal was given; the evidence of recovery is highly doubtful. There are contradictions with regard to the recovery of the money.

The learned Counsel appearing for the CBI refuted the contention and contended that the contradiction, which has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant is of no avail to him; the inconsistencies and the contradictions are always there in the testimony of the truthful witnesses; the evidence was recorded after a lapse of time and as such the contradiction and the inconsistency are bound to creep in such testimony; the shadow witnesses have been produced before the Court who are said to be the independent witnesses but the testimony of any person can be adjusted on its credibility and not on the ground that he is a witness of a fact that the police has got him influenced.

From perusal of the record, it is revealed that the discrepancies which have been pointed out in the testimony of the witnesses was due to lapse of time. The evidence of the witnesses was recorded in the year 1998 whereas the raid was conducted in the year 1992; thus due to elapse of time, the discrepancies are bound to creep in the testimony of the truthful witnesses but the discrepancies, which have been pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is in no way in nature which completely demolishes the genesis of the case. The trap proceedings have not been challenged during the course of cross-examination. The human memory is said to be very weak memory. Due to lapse of time a person is not expected to make the entire narration meticulously as a Tape Recorder or a Video Camera. A witness due to lapse of time always details some discrepancies in his version before the Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that a number of persons came at the time of the raid but these witnesses have not been produced before the court. The non- production of those witnesses would laid to take inference that if they would have been produced, they would have not supported the prosecution version. It is true that P.W.-4, the complainant, Mustafa Hussain, has stated that at the time of trap, 5-6 persons reached at the spot. It is also true that at the time of raid, there were number of persons in the raiding party, who had given a consistent version before the Court. There is no rule of law or the prudence that the prosecution should produce all the witnesses on the same point. The court has to see the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence. If the quality of the evidence, which has been adduced by the prosecution is sufficient to convict the accused appellant, it is not necessary that the other persons/witnesses should be produced before the court by the prosecution. Thus the non-production of the other witnesses before the trial court is not fatal to the prosecution. It is also settled proposition of law that even if the recovery witnesses are not available, only the police witness comes forward and he deposes before the trial court and his evidence should be taken into account as of a common man. The testimony of the police personnel must be treated in the same manner as the testimony of any other witnesses. Even the testimony of the police witness can be relied upon without being corroborated by the testimony of the independent witnesses. There is presumption that a person acts honestly as a police person, it is not proper to distrust and suspect them without good ground. The presumption in law is that a person acts honestly and in the instant case, the police witnesses who conducted the trap and who had given their evidence to that effect that the accused demanded the money as illegal gratification. The complainant handed over the money to him and he counted it and thereafter the said money was kept in (sic) pocket of the pant and the same has been corroborated by two shadow witnesses, P.W.-6 - Bharat Singh and P.W.-11, Hari Shankar Choudhary. In this case, P.W.-4, the complainant, Mustafa Hussain, has also supported the entire prosecution story in his evidence and they remained consistent during the trial. Thus the evidence of the police witness as well as the independent witnesses is consistent, credible and cogent. This view has been laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of reported in Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), . For the better appreciation, it is necessary to quote Para 8 of the said judgment, which runs as follows:

Shri Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, has vehemently urged that all the witnesses of recovery examined by the prosecution are police personnel and in the absence of any public witness, their testimony alone should not be held sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the appellant. In our opinion the contention raised is too broadly stated and cannot be accepted. The testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down. P.W.-11 Pratap Singh has clearly stated in the opening part of his examination in-chief that ACP Shakti Singh asked some public witnesses to accompany them but they showed their unwillingness. P.W. 10 Rajinder Prasad, SI has given similar statement and has deposed that despite their best efforts, no one from the public was willing to join the raiding party due to the fear of the terrorists. Exactly similar statement has been given by P.W. 9 RD Pandey. We should not forget that the incident took place in November 1990, when terrorism was at its peak in Punjab and neighbouring areas. The ground realities cannot be lost sight of that even in normal circumstances members of the public are very reluctant to accompany a police party which is going to arrest a criminal or is embarking upon search of some premises. At the time when terrorism was at its peak, it is quite natural for members of the public to have avoided getting involved in a police operation for search or arrest of a person having links with terrorists. It is noteworthy that during the course of the cross-examination of the witness the defence did not even give any suggestion as to why they were falsely deposing against the appellant. There is absolutely no material or evidence on record to show that the prosecution witnesses had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant who was none else but a colleague of theirs being a member of the same police force. Therefore, the contention raised by Shri Sinha that on account of non-examination of a public witness, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are police personnel should not be relied upon, has hardly any substance and cannot be accepted.

The learned Counsel for the (sic) also relied upon the judgment of State of U.P. Vs. Zakaullah, as in that case it was held that the Dy. S.P. who arranged the trap, had no interest against the respondent animosity to bring his trap but the same is not a ground to think that any amnesty against the delinquent officer and the evidence can be acted even without help of any corroboration.

I have gone through the entire evidence with regard to the prosecution witnesses and all the documentary evidences, the learned trial court has come to the conclusi6n that the prosecution has proved the case beyond the reasonable doubt on various relevant views of the relevant case including the genesis, the nature of the incident and the nature of the evidence produced by the prosecution. It cannot be concluded from the prosecution evidence or from any probability arising out of the record that the accused appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. I do not find any fault in the findings recorded by the learned trial court and after going through the same, I also do not find any reason to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses. I am completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court and I find that the prosecution has established its case beyond the reasonable doubt. Thus, I do not find any force in the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused-appellant. The witnesses were cross-examined at length but nothing could have come to discard their testimony. It is amply established by the evidences about the acceptance of money by the accused-appellant and thereafter, the said money was recovered at the spot from his pocket. It has been held as follows in the case reported in State of West Bengal Vs. Kailash Chandra Pandey, .

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 wash turned into pink colour water and likewise the accused''s pant pocket which was washed, the water also turned into pink. Therefore, from the chain of circumstances, the prosecution story stands fully substantiated.

In the instant case, also it is amply proved that the accused appellant accepted a sum of Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification and the money was recovered from his possession and the hands of the appellant, by which he accepted the currency notes were washed turned into the pink colour water and likewise the pocket of the accused appellant which was washed the water also became pink, therefore the chain of circumstances as well as oral evidence to that effect the prosecution story stands fully substantiated.

The learned Counsel appearing for the accused appellant further contended that the accused-appellant was apprehended on 3.9.92 and he remained in custody for a long period. The conviction of the accused-appellant was recorded on 18.8.2000 and this appeal is going to be decided on 02.02.2010 i.e. after lapse of about nine years and as such, a lenient view should be taken for recording the sentence He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court, which was referred by the leaned Counsel for the respondent reported in State of U.P. Vs. Zakaullah, , in which the Hon''ble Apex Court while convicting the accused appellant has held that due to the distance of the time - between the date of commission of the offence and now - the court was in fact not inclined to impose a sentence of R.I. for more than one year arid a fine, then accordingly the accused appellant was sentenced for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each in that case. He also contended that taking the benefit of the said judgment, he may be given same benefit in this case also.

The accused appellant has been convicted u/s 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 each and keeping in view the pendency of the appeal for a long time as well as a long gap between the date of commission of the offence and the trial as well as the the hearing of this appeal and the fact that the illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/- was accepted by the appellant and also taking into consideration the other relevant facts of this case, I find that the sentence of one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and further sentence of six months of R.I. u/s 7 of the P.C. Act would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

In this view of the matter, the appellant is liable to be convicted to undergo R.I. for six months u/s 7 and also one year''s R.I. u/s 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and both the sentences shall run concurrently instead of the sentence of R.I. for two years u/s 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 each awarded by the learned trial court and the fine which has been imposed by the trial court requires no interference.

This appeal is partly allowed to the (sic) extent on the point of sentence only.