Sugan Chand vs State of U.P.

N.S. Gupta, J.—The Appellant Sugan Chand who was convicted and u/s 161, I.P.C. and u/s 5(1) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, vide judgment and order dated 10.12.1979 passed by Sri. G.R.S. Tandon the then IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 1 year and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine further undergo R.I. for 6 months on the first count and two years R.I. on the second count, has come up in appeal before this Court.

The prosecution case is that the accused Appellant was working as a village Lekhpal of village Thanha Bhawan Kasba Jalalabad, district Muzaffarnagar in the year 1977. An application for demarcation of plot of Sri. Jag Ram, a farmer of village Jalalabad., came for enquiry before the accused Appellant. The accused Appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from the farmer, Jag Ram. Jag Ram made a complaint about this matter to the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar. The Superintendent of Police Muzaffarnagar referred the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, at Meerut. Sri. Laxmi Narain Shukla, P.W. 1, who was then working as Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Branch Meerut circle Meerut, laid a trap on 12.2.1977 at about 10 a.m. in Kasba Jalalabad district Muzaffarnagar and caught the accused Appellant Sugan Chand red-handed while accepting a Sum of Rs. 500/- from the complainant Rag Ram. The currency notes of Rs. 500/- which were earlier signed by Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption were duly recovered from the possession of the accused Appellant. The accused was accordingly prosecuted and convicted as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, he has come in appeal before this Court.

I have heard Sri. G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Sri. Shyam Singh Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the State; considered their contentions and have gone through the facts and circumstance of the case.

It was urged on behalf of the Appellant that the Appellant did not demand any illegal gratification from the complainant Jag Ram. The currency notes of Rs. 500/- which are said to have been recovered from the possession of the Appellant were, infact, the amount which the complainant had given to the accused Appellant for being deposited in Small Savings. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended before me that the accused Appellant had proved his defence by the probability of the case and that the learned Court below has grossly erred in discarding the version of the accused-Appellant.

I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant. Exhibit Kha-7 is the postal receipt, which bears the signature of complainant Jag Ram. It was argued on behalf of the accused Appellant that the complainant Jag Ram P.W. 3, during the course of evidence before the Court below did not deny his signature on the postal receipt. It was, therefore, urged before me that it should be believed that this postal receipt bears the signature of Jag Ram. From this postal receipt it is sought to be concluded that the complainant Jag Ram has paid a sum of Rs. 500/- for being deposited as Small Saving to the accused Appellant. The accused Appellant had proved the signature of the complainant Jag Ram on this postal receipt by the evidence of Sri. S.S. Kapoor D.W. 1 Hand writing Expert. DW. 3 Sri. Ram Swarup stated that on 12.2.1977 at about 0.30 a.m. he was sitting with the accused Appellant in Kasba Jalalabad where the complainant Jag Ram came and he asked the accused Appellant to fill up the form of small saving for Rs. 500/- and thereafter the complainant put his signature upon the form. Sri. Ram Swarup D.W. 3 has not stated that the complainant Jag Ram paid a sum of Rs. 500/- to the accused Appellant in his presence: he rather stated that the complainant went up saying that he would pay the said amount after some time.

I should state here that if it was a fact that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 500/- for being deposited in the small saving; there was no necessity for him to take so much of the exercise as to have gone to the Superintendent of Police Muzaffarnagar and then to Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Branch at Meerut of to get a trap laid down for trapping the accused Appellant in a bribery case. It is important to note here that the occurrence of this case had taken place on 12.2.1977 on which date the complainant is said to have signed the postal receipt Ex. Kha 7. The complainant had admittedly complained about the demand of illegal gratification by the accused Appellant to the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar, and to the Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Branch, at Meerut earlier to 12.2.1977 and, infact, a trap was laid on 12.2.1977 at about 10 a.m.

Coming to the probabilities of the case I find that the complainant Jag Ram was a well-to-do farmer who was having Tractor and enough cultivable land, his application, complaining about the encroachment on his field, was sent to the accused Appellant who was working as village Lekhpal for enquiry and report. It is important to note that the accused Appellant having admittedly been working as village Lekhpal, it is probable for me to believe that when the application of this kind, Ex Ka-7 of the complainant Jag Ram came to him for enquiry and report he demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- for submitting his report. It appears to me that the complainant Jag Ram did not appreciate the demand made by the accused Appellant he, therefore, complained above the matter and set the machinery of law in motion. I, therefore, see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of complainant Jag Ram. I find that it was rightly believed by the learned Court below. The circumstances that the accused Appellant was caught red-handed while accepting a sum of Rs. 500 as bribe by Sri. Laxmi Narain Shukla, Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Branch leave no room for me to doubt the veracity of the prosecution case. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Court below has rightly believed the version of the prosecution and rightly convicted the accused Appellant u/s 161, I.P.C. and u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It was vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellant before me that the incident of this case had happened about 19 years back and that the accused Appellant is an old man of about 74 years of age; he has undergone mental agony since after his prosecution and conviction and, therefore, lenient view in the matter of sentence be taken by this Court. Reliance was placed upon the proposition of law laid down in Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in JT 1995 (6) SC 88. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above case had let off the accused Appellant by inflicting the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. In that case the Appellant Ramesh Kumar Gupta was working as Sub-Inspector of Police. He was convicted and sentenced in a bribery case for a period of 1 year with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 months.

In the instant case before me, the Appellant was a village Lekhpal. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 1 year and a fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 161 I.P.C. and a sentence of 2 year R.I. u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. When their Lordships of the Hon''ble Supreme Court had let off a Sub-Inspector of Police on the basis of the period undergone, I am of the opinion that the Appellant who, was only a village Lekhpal and who is now about 74 years of age and who has undergone mental agony for a period of 18 years also deserves leniency in the matter of sentence. Thus, while maintaining the order of conviction passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar against the accused Appellant Under Sections 161, I.P.C. and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act it is directed that the period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused Appellant should be construed as sufficient punishment. As regards the fine I am of the opinion that it will meet the ends of Justice if the fine of Rs. 500/- imposed by the learned Court below is enhanced to Rs. 1,000 u/s 161, I.P.C. a fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and in default of payment further R.I. for a period of 2 months each.

The accused Appellant is directed to deposit the fine within a month from the date of this order failing which he shall be committed to imprisonment according to law.

Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the Appellant on payment of usual charges according to rules forthwith.