Sat Pal vs State of Haryana

A.S. Nehra, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.2.1987 passed by Special Judge, Rohtak by which Sat Pal, appellant has been convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under Section 161 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. He was further sentenced to undergo RI for three years under Section 161 IPC. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

Briefly, the prosecution story is that PW5, Karam Singh had applied to the Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kablana, for a loan of Rs. 4,000/ for purchasing a pair of bullocks. A copy of this application form is Ex. P5. The bank gave him letter, Ex. PT, in the name of the Veterinary Surgeon, Kablana, to examine the bullocks and issue a health certificate in respect of them. At that time, accused Sat Pal was working as a Veterinary Surgeon in Veterinary Hospital, Kablana. Karan Singh visited the accused 23 times before this occurrence for issuing health certificate. On the first visit, the accused asked him to produce the bullocks. He did so but the accused demanded Rs. 100/ as illegal gratification. Karan Singh told the accused that he did not have the money and, therefore, he brought the bullocks back without examination and without a certificate. Karan Singh made a second visit to the accused on the same day with the same request but the accused told him that unless he was paid the demanded money, he would not issue the requisite certificate. Karan Singh confided this in Shankar, but the latter expressed his helplessness in the matter. Thereafter, Karan Singh made one or two more unsuccessful visits to the accused and ultimately on 3.10.1985, he came to Rohtak and went to the office of the State Vigilance Bureau. There he found Mukhtiar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon, present there, before whom he got recorded his statement, Ex. PH. After making his endorsement, Ex. PH/1 on the said statement, DSP Mukhtiar Singh sent the same to the Police Station, State Vigilance Bureau, Gurgaon, through H.C. Fateh Singh; on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PH/2 was registered at 5.00 p.m., while a copy of FIR reached the Ilaqa Magistrate, Jhajjar, at 6.45 a.m. on the next day. Thereafter, DSP Mukhtiar Singh along with complainant Karan Singh (PW5), Inspector Ram Sarup (PW6), one Head Constable, and two constables went to Jhajjar, where they associated Mehtab Singh (PW 8), Block Development and Panchayat Officer, in the raiding party. A hundredrupee note, Ex. P1, was taken from Karan Singh, which was treated with phenolphthalein powder and given back to Karan Singh with the direction to pass it on to the accused on demand. Inspector Ram Sarup was directed to act as a shadow witness. Memo Ex. PK with regard to these proceedings was also prepared.

The prosecution story further goes that thereafter all these witnesses went to village Kablana in a jeep. The jeep was parked a little distance before Veterinary Hospital, where the accused was expected to be. There, Karan Singh and Inspector Ram Sarup were dropped while the rest of the party followed them with some gap and stationed itself at point ''D'' shown in the site plan Ex. PD. Thereafter, Karan Singh went to the room marked ''B'' in the site plan, where the accused was sitting, who on seeing Karan Singh, asked him whether he had brought the money. Upon this, Karan Singh handed over the note to him and the doctor issued him the requisite certificate. At this stage, Inspector Ram Sarup gave signal to the rest of the party and they rushed in. After disclosing his identity to the accused, DSP Mukhtiar Singh searched him and recovered the tainted note from the left side pocket of his bush shirt, which was sealed into a parcel and taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PR. Karan Singh also produced certificate, Ex. PF, which too was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PQ. The hands of the accused, the pocket of his bushshirt and the hands of the complainant were separately washed in a solution of sodium carbonate and each wash became pink. These washes were separately sealed and taken into possession. The accused produced register Ex. PF/1 containing entry No. 29, Ex. PF/2 with regard to the issue of certificate. This register was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PO and the accused was arrested.

The currency note and the three bottles of the wash were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Haryana, Madhuban, and the report, Ex. PY, from that Laboratory confirmed that phenolphthalein was detected on the note, while sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein were detected in the three washes. Thereafter sanction, Ex. PZ of the appointing authority was obtained under Section 6(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for the prosecution of the accused.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined HC Fateh Singh (PW 1), Dhani Ram, Draughtsman (PW2), Ishwar Singh (PW3), Kartar Singh (PW4), Karam Singh (PW5), Inspector Ram Sarup (PW6), Randhir Singh (PW7), Mehtab Singh (PW8), Mukhtiar Singh, DSP (PW9) and M.K. Miglani (PW10).

PW1 HC Fateh Singh tendered his affidavit, Ex. PB in evidence on 3.9.1986 but he was crossexamined on 9.10.1986 as the counsel for the accused in the trial Court was not available when the affidavit was tendered. During crossexamination, he stated that on 3.10.1985 he along with DSP Mukhtiar Singh had reached Rohtak from Gurgaon at about 9.00 a.m. and they halted at the Unit of the State Vigilance Bureau, Rohtak, where complainant Karan Singh came at about 12 noon or 1.00 p.m. He further stated that at about 2.00 p.m., he was handed over a ruqa, Ex. PH at the Unit of the S.V.B. Rohtak, situated at Sonepat Road, Rohtak for taking it to Gurgaon for the registration of the case and that at the time DSP Mukhtiar Singh was there in that room. The witness further stated that he had reached Gurgaon at about 5.00 p.m., where he handed over ruqa to MHC Sunil Kumar and further that he was given two copies of the FIR and was directed to deliver one copy to Superintendent of Police, S.V.B. Gurgaon, while the other copy was to be delivered to the Magistrate at Jhajjar. After delivering a copy of FIR in the SVB Unit, Gurgaon, the witness reached Bus Stand, Gurgaon at about 7.00 p.m., but as no direct bus for Jhajjar was available, he boarded a bus for Delhi and reached Rohtak, where he stayed during the night and reached Jhajjar the next day.

PW2 Dhani Ram, Draughtsman prepared scaled site plan, Ex. PD on 16.10.1985, with correct marginal notes at the instance of the police and at the pointing out of Karan Singh.

PW3 Ishwar Singh, Assistant Deputy Director, Intensive Cattle Development Project, Gurgaon, stated that Sat Pal, accused was appointed as Veterinary Surgeon on ad hoc basis vide appointment order dated 31.5.1984, copy Ex. PE, and he joined as such in the HospitalcumBreeding Centre, Kablana, on 7.6.1984, where he remained posted till his suspension under the orders dated 24.10.1985 passed by the Government. The witness further stated that he was making the statement on the basis of service book of the accused, which he had brought with him.

PW4 Kartar Singh, Stock Assistant, Veterinary Hospital, stated that he had seen the certificate, Ex. PF, which was in the hand of accused Sat Pal and bore his signatures, which he identified because he had been working under the accused and was acquainted in his handwriting. He further stated that the postmortem and the health register was also maintained by the veterinary surgeon. He was also shown entry No. 29 in the register, Ex. PF/1, but he could not say as to whether that entry was in the handwriting of the accused or not. At this stage, the witness was declared hostile and he was allowed to be crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor. During crossexamination, he stated that police had recorded his statement; that besides him and one compounder, there was only one veterinary surgeon in the aforesaid hospital, who at that time was the accused and that certificate of the fitness of cattle for the purpose of loan etc. could be issued only by the veterinary surgeon and not by the compounder. The witness further stated that he did not know whether in the register of postmortem and health, entry is to be made by the same doctor, who is to issue the certificate. He was again shown entry Nos. 29 and 30 in the said register but he could not say, if the signature against those entries were of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he was suppressing the truth to help the accused.

PW5 Karan Singh stated that he had purchased two bullocks from Ram Phal for Rs. 4,000/ and to pay the price of the bullocks, he went to Bank at Kablana, obtained the form therefrom, got signatures of Patwari, Sarpanch and Secretary on that form, thumb marked it and returned it to the bank. The bank Manager gave him a letter to take it to Dr. Sat Pal, before whom the witness produced the said form but the doctor asked him to produce the bullocks before him and he did so. The witness further stated that the accused demanded from him Rs. 100/ as illegal gratification but he told the accused that he had no money and brought back the bullocks to his house. As the said doctor had told the witness to visit him again with money, he again went to the accused on the same day without money and the doctor refused to issue him the certificate without payment of money. The witness also brought these facts to the notice of Shankar, who expressed his helplessness in the matter. Ultimately, on 3.10.1985, the witness went to the Vigilance Office, Rohtak, where he met Inspector Ram Sarup, one DSP, a Havildar and two Constables and got recorded his statement, Ex. PH, about the entire episode and thumb marked the same in token of its correctness.

He further stated that thereafter he along with Inspector Ram Sarup, one DSP, a Havildar and two constables went to the office of BDO, Jhajjar, where a hundred rupee note was handed over to the BDO, who noted its number. Some powder was also applied to the note and the note was returned to the witness. Thereafter, the entire raiding party including complainant, BDO and other police personnel went in a jeep to Kablana, where the jeep was parked a little distance away from the Veterinary hospital. Thereafter, the witness and Inspector Ram Sarup went inside the hospital. Accused Sat Pal was sitting in a room, before whom the witness placed the money on the table; whereafter the accused issued him the certificate. Inspector Ram Sarup gave a signal to the other members of the raiding party and all of them rushed to the room where the accused was sitting. The witness further stated that the police made the accused take off his bushshirt and the pocket of said shirt was washed in water, whereafter the accused was made to wash his hands. The hands of complainant were also got washed and each wash was put into a separate bottle. Thos bottles were sealed and taken into possession by the police. The police took Dr. Sat Pal, accused, with them in the jeep and proceeded towards Jhajjar, while the witness returned to his home. The witness further stated that he had placed hundred rupee note at the table of the doctor but he did not know as to what happened to that note. At this stage, the witness was got declared hostile by the public prosecutor who crossexamined him. The witness was put a specific question; to which he replied as under :

"Q. You had stated to the police that you had given Rs. 100/ to Dr. Sat Pal as bribe ?

A. I had only placed the note at the table."

The witness was confronted with portion A to A of his statement Ex. PJ, where it was so recorded. He further stated that he had not given the note to the accused; that the accused had not put the same in his pocket in his presence and that the police did not recover it from the pocket of accused in his presence. He, however, admitted it to be correct that the note was washed in his presence and the wash was also sealed into a bottle. He also admitted that each of the four washes had become pink. He, however, denied the suggestion that he was suppressing a part of the story in order to favour the accused.

PW6 Ram Sarup, Inspector stated that on 3.10.1985, he was Vigilance Inspector, Rohtak and on that day about 1.00 p.m./1.30 p.m., complainant Karan Singh came to the Vigilance Office, Rohtak, where Mukhtiar Singh, DSP was also present before whom, the complainant made a statement, which was sent to Gurgaon for the registration of the case. He further stated that thereafter he along with DSP Mukhtiar Singh, Karan Singh, a Havildar and two constables left Rohtak for Jhajjar by jeep and went to the office of BDO, where Mehtab Singh, BDO was associated in the raiding party. The witness further stated that the complainant had presented a hundred rupee note to the DSP, who initialled the same, treated it with phenolphthalein powder and after preparing memo, Ex. PK, in this regard, the note was given back to Karan Singh, who was directed to pass it to Sat Pal accused on demand while the witness was deputed to act as a shadow witness. The witness further stated that after reaching Kablana, the jeep was parked at some distance from the hospital, while he and Karan Singh went to the hospital, where accused was present in a room, to whom the complainant asked to issue the certificate regarding fitness of the bullocks but the accused asked the witness whether he had brought hundred rupees. The complainant gave the note to the doctor and took certificate from him. Thereafter, the witness gave a signal to the raiding party which rushed to the spot and the DSP after disclosing his identity, searched the accused and recovered the marked currency note of rupees one hundred from the left side pocket of his bushshirt. The accused was made to take off his shirt and the pocket of that shirt was washed. The wash become pink. The shirt and the wash were made into sealed parcels. Then, the complainant was made to wash his hands. This wash also became pink and it was put in a bottle and sealed. The witness further stated that all bottles containing washes, the bushshirt, the register, the hundred rupees note and the certificate were taken into possession vide recovery memos Exs. PL, PM. PN, PO, PQ and PR respectively and the seal after use, was handed over to the BDO.

PW7, Randhir singh, Manager, Haryana Kshetriya Bank, Kablana, proved photostat copy of the loan application, Ex. PS, moved by Karan Singh and the sanction order, Ex. PS/1, passed by him. He further stated that Karan Singh wanted a loan of Rs. 4,000/ for the purchase of bullocks and he gave to him a letter, Ex. PT addressed to veterinary doctor to issue the fitness certificate as regards the bullocks. He further stated that loan is not released unless and until fitness certificate is produced.

PW8 Mehtab Singh stated that on 3.10.1985 he was posted as BDPO and on that day at about 3.00 p.m., DSP Mukhtiar Singh accompanied by Karam Singh and other officials came to his office and requested him to accompany them to village Kablana for a raid. The witness asked the DSP to obtain permission from the District Magistrate or somebody else as he was not aware whether he had the authority to join the raid or not; whereafter the DSP talked on telephone to Sh. D.P. Nangal, the then Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jhajjar and got his approval. The witness further stated that thereafter DSP called complainant Karan Singh of village Bhadani, who produced a hundred rupee note, which was initialled by the DSP and after applying phenolphthalein powder to that note, the same was returned to Karan Singh, who was instructed to pass that note on the Veterinary doctor at Kablana on demand. He further stated that thereafter, all of them started for Kablana in a jeep, which was stopped near the hospital while Karan Singh and Inspector Ram Sarup, who was deputed as a shadow witness, were made to get down from the jeep and Ram Sarup was directed to give a signal by raising his right hand, after the note on demand had been passed over to the accused.

The witness further stated that after 56 minutes, Ram Sarup gave the signal, whereafter the raiding party went inside the room where the accused was sitting on a Charpai. The DSP disclosed his identity to the accused and on his search, recovered a hundred rupee note from the left front pocket of the accused and noted its number in his diary. He further stated that thereafter, Dr. Sat Pal, accused, was made to wash his hand in a mixture of sodium carbonate and the wash became pink, which was put into a bottle, sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo, Ex. PL. Then, the pocket of the doctor, from where the note was recovered, was washed and here again the wash became pink. This wash was put in bottle, made into a sealed parcel and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PM. The bushshirt of the accused was also made into a sealed parcel and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PM. The witness further stated that then the hands of the complainant Karan Singh were washed in a solution and the said wash also became pink, which was put into a bottle, sealed and taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PN. The complainant also produced certificate memo Ex. PF which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PQ. He further stated that accused was arrested and on his Jamatalashi, Rs. 270/ in cash and an HMT watch were recovered, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PV.

PW9 DSP Mukhtiar Singh fully supported the prosecution case in sum and substance, as divulged by other witness and also detailed in earlier part of the judgment while narrating facts of the case.

PW10 M.K. Miglani, Commissioner, proved sanction order, Ex. PZ, which was passed by him in his capacity as Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Animal Husbandary Department, according sanction for the prosecution of Sat Pal accused under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Section 161 IPC.

When examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant admitted that at the relevant time, he was posted as Veterinary Surgeon at Kablana but he denied other allegations and took the following plea :

"Dharam Pal Singh is brother of Karam Singh. He is Agricultural Development Officer at Gurgaon. He has got good relations with the officers there. Karam Singh came to me on 30.9.1985. He produced before me a letter, Ex. PT. I asked Karan Singh to show me his bullocks. He said that he had no bullocks. He said that I should issue him the certificate so that he could draw money and purchase the bullocks which he would show me then. I told him that it was not possible. I told him that I would issue him the certificate after he had shown me the bullocks. Karan Singh said that I should accept money and issue certificate without seeing the bullocks. I got angry and asked him to leave the hospital. He left. After one and a half or two hours, he came again. This time, he brought a pair of bullocks with him. He said that now he had brought the bullocks, I should issue the certificate. I examined the bullocks and wanted to brand them. To this, Karan Singh objected. He told me that he had borrowed these bullocks from somebody and had not purchased them. He said that he had borrowed them from Shankar. He asked me not to brand them. I said to them that I would not give him the certificate without branding them. He said that he would consult Shankar Lal before the bullocks were branded. He left without taking the bullocks with him. After two hours, he came again in the company of Shankar. Shankar Lal asked me to issue the certificate. I wanted to brand the bullocks. Shankar Lal said that the bullocks were his and he would not allow them to be branded. He said that nobody would buy them after they were branded. I asked Shankar Lal, he was nobody to interfere. I told him that if Karan Singh wanted certificate, then bullocks must be branded. I removed Shankar from there. Upon this, Shankar said that I should do whatever I liked but I must issue them certificate. I branded the bullocks. I issued certificate Ex. PF and entered at Sr. No. 29 which is Ex. PF/2 in register Ex. PF/1. I gave the certificate to Karan Singh. After taking certificate, Shankar Lal said to me ''Doctor Sahib, you have done whatever you could do, now we shall settle the score with you.''

On 3.10.1985, I was lying in my quarter after closing the hospital. The time was about 3.30 p.m. I was wearing baniyan and Pant. Karan Singh came there. He shook hands with me. He said that he apologized for the behaviour of Shankar Lal on 30.9.1985. He said that they always need me for the treatment of cattle. Thereafter, two persons came there. They said that they were Vigilance men. Thereafter two or three more came in. They were also in plain clothes. They also said that they were vigilance men. They said to me that I had accepted bribe. Karan Singh pointed out towards the table and these people picked up notes from the table. I told them that I had not taken any bribe nor demanded it. They browbeat me. They took shirt of mine which was hanging on the peg. They took out Rs. 270/ from it. They also took into possession my watch. Then I was made to put on my shirt which they had removed from the peg and from which they had taken out the money. Then they took out another shirt of mine from the Almirah. While leaving, they opened the office room and picked up register Ex. PF/1. Then the entire raiding party including Karan Singh sat in the jeep and they made me sit also in the jeep. Ram Chander and Om Parkash appeared on the scene at this stage. They took us to BDO Office at Jhajjar. They went on preparing papers. The DSP caught hold of me by my hands. He made my hands washed. They manipulated coloured water. Then they made me to remove my shirt. I was given the second shirt to wear. Thereafter, they also did some writing work. I was put up in the lock up in the P.S."

In his defence, the accused examined four witnesses.

DW1 Ram Chander, a cultivator of village Kablana stated at about 3.30 p.m. on the day of the occurrence, he had gone to the hospital of the accused to get medicines for his buffalo, where he saw a jeep carrying few persons coming there. Those persons went to the room of the accused. There was a noise. The persons who had come in the jeep brought the accused out, put him in the jeep and took him away along with a register. He further stated that after few days, the accused met him and told him that he had been falsely implicated in a bribe case. He further stated that the village Sarpanch had also witnessed this occurrence.

DW2 Om Parkash, Sarpanch, gave an almost similar version as the one given by DW1 Ram Chander.

DW3 Kartar Singh, an employee of the hospital of the accused, proved two entries in the outdoor register which showed that on 2.10.1985 and 3.10.1985, medicines were issued for the buffalo of Ram Chander. Obviously, the purpose of examining this witness was to make the presence of Ram Chander DW1 in the hospital at the time of occurrence natural.

DW4 is constable Om Parkash. He brought the log book of the jeep allotted to DSP Mukhtiar Singh. The purpose of examining this witness was to falsify the statement of the DSP that he had come from Gurgaon to Rohtak by bus and had gone from Rohtak to Jhajjar to conduct the raid in the jeep borrowed from some other department. But what this witness stated, that supported the version of DSP. According to statement of this witness, the jeep allotted to the DSP was taken by SI Maharaj Singh to Faridabad on 2.10.1985 but it was brought back in the evening and on the next day i.e. 3.10.1985, it was taken by SI Ram Kishan to Delhi and Karnal. This is completely in consonance with the version of the DSP that his own jeep was not available and that he travelled from Gurgaon to Rohtak by bus. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that when the jeep had come to Gurgaon on 2.10.1985, it was very much available for the DSP. The argument is without any basis because the DSP travelled on 3.10.1985 and there was nothing wrong, if he had allowed the jeep to be used by some other officer, who may have been on more urgent duty and he himself travelled by bus.

Mr. P.S. Mann, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant laid great emphasis on the statement of Karan Singh to the effect that he had placed the currency note on the table before the accused. It was highlighted by the learned counsel that nowhere in his statement, Karan Singh had stated that the accused received the note in his hand. We can''t lose sight of the fact that in the earlier part of his statement, Karam Singh had stated that more than once the accused had demanded money from him and had refused to issue him the certificate unless the money was paid. If it were not so, there would have been no need for the complainant to go to the police and get the raid conducted. Furthermore, Inspector Ram Sarup says in unequivocal terms that when Karan Singh entered the room of the accused, the latter had asked him whether he had brought the money; whereupon the complainant gave the note to him and on receipt of it, the accused issued certificate to the complainant. Furthermore, it has also come in the evidence of Inspector Ram Sarup (PW6), DSP Mukhtiar Singh (PW9) and Mehtab Singh, B.D. & P.O. (PW8) that the note was recovered from the pocket of the accused. If we have to see the totality of the evidence, then no scope remains for entertaining any doubt that the accused very much demanded the money and received it. Karan Singh appears to have ultimately succumbed to the pressure of the accused and it is for that reason that he had made his statement. It is interesting to note how he tried to evade the question of recovery. He stated that he had placed the money on the table, whereafter the accused issued him the certificate. Thereafter, Inspector Ram Sarup came out of the room to give signal while Karan Singh also came out. But the pretence could not last long because in the subsequent part of his statement, Karan Singh says that the police made the accused take off his bushshirt; pocket whereof was washed and the wash became pink. Indeed, when we read this portion of testimony of Karan Singh in overall context of the case, then no doubt remains that he has deliberately tried to scuttle the prosecution case to help the accused, but he could not succeed. To presume that the complainant or Shankar were offended on account of branding of the animals and that they manoeuvred this raid, will be something simply fantastic. Karan Singh is rustic and not so powerful that officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and B.D. & P.O. would dance to his tunes. It need also to be noticed that all the witnesses have denied their acquaintance with Dharam Pal, brother of complainant Karam Singh, who was an Agriculture Development Officer at Gurgaon. I think the fact of Dharam Pal being an Agriculture Officer has come in only as an easy tool in the hands of the accused to malign the prosecution witnesses. There is no substance in the allegations of the accused. The fact that the complainant and Shankar were hesitant to get the bullocks branded is also of no assistance to the accused. After all, Karan Singh had only agreed to buy these bullocks from Shankar and had not yet paid him the price.

In fact, he could not pay it until he got the loan and they might not be sure that the loan will be granted. Procedures are cumbersome and the objections raised by the loaning officials are so frivolous that sometimes even people placed in a much better social strata than Karan Singh and Shankar, cannot be sure that a particular loan applied for by them would be really granted. What appears is that the accused is giving a twist to facts and exploiting the situation. It has come in the crossexamination of Bank Manager, Randhir Singh (PW7), that according to the rules, he should have been present at the time of examination of the bullocks. Surely, he was not present when the accused examined the bullocks in this case. If the accused did not have any ulterior motive and if he was so law abiding, which he pretends to be in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he should have insisted on the presence of the Bank Manager. In the face of ocular and circumstantial evidence against the accused, the statements of the defence witnesses do not cut much ice as such witnesses could be easily procured by the accused to give tutored evidence. Moreover what these witnesses say, does not shake the prosecution case.

After going through the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for parties, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused on both counts.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the occurrence took place on 3.10.1985 and the appellant had already undergone the agony of facing criminal proceedings for all these years, therefore, no useful purpose will be served to send him back to prison at this stage. In support of his argument, he relied upon M.O. Shamsudin v. State of Kerala, 1995(2) RCR 315 ; Pyare Lal v. State of Delhi Administration, 1995(2) RCR 663 and Sarup Chand v. State of Punjab, 1987(2) RCR 161. I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the fact that about 12 years have elapsed from the date of incident and it was for the first time that the appellant had committed an offence, I hereby reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is however, maintained.

Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.