Sukhbir Singh vs State

Hima Kohli, J.—The present application is filed by the Appellant praying inter alia for grant of suspension of sentence, in respect of impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.1.2011 and order on sentence dated 29.1.2011. Under the judgment of conviction, the Special Judge, Delhi has held the Appellant guilty and convicted him for committing offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(for short ''the Act''). Under the order on sentence, the Appellant has been awarded sentence to undergo RI for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of two months u/s 7 of the Act. He is further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of two months u/s 13(2) of the Act. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. However, the Appellant was given the benefit available u/s 428 Cr.PC.

In the instant case, the Appellant is a Head Constable working in PS Geeta Colony. The case of the prosecution was that on 8.9.2006, the Appellant called the complainant, Vinod Kumar(PW-8) in the police station and informed him that a lady, Lata Chauhan had lodged a complaint against him. The Appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant for not registering an FIR against him. The amount was settled at Rs. 5,000/- and the complainant gave Rs. 1,000/- to the Appellant with a promise to pay Rs. 4,000/- on 9.9.2006. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi with the allegation that the Appellant had demanded a bribe for closing the complaint of Ms. Lata Chauhan. As per the prosecution, a raiding party was constituted with an ACP leading the team and the Appellant was caught red handed accepting the bribe. Charges were framed against the Appellant to which he pleaded that he was not guilty and claimed trial. The trial has culminated in his conviction as noted above.

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Appellant seeks suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal on the ground that the raid was concocted and stage-managed and that the pre-raid procedures remained unproved. He further submits that the complainant(PW-8) had turned hostile in the trial and the Panch witness, Mr. Umesh Sehgal(PW-2) had also not corroborated the case of the prosecution. Learned Senior counsel further submits that if the testimony of PW-2 is read comprehensively, it would indicate that the recovery of the treated GC notes from the right hand fist of the Appellant was not made in the presence of the Panch witness. He also submits that the trial court failed to take into consideration the submission of the Appellant that he had been falsely implicated by the complainant in the present case and that later on, even the complainant had not supported the prosecution version of the case. It is further argued that if the call detail record of the mobile phone of the Panch witness, PW-2 is carefully examined, it would reveal that he was not present on the day, time and place where the trap was laid, as claimed by the prosecution. Lastly, it is urged that since the sentence imposed on the Appellant was for less than three years, he had a right to be released on bail, more so, when the trial court has released him on interim bail, which order is valid till 13.3.2011.

The impugned judgment reflects that apart from the panch witness(PW-2) and the complainant(PW-8), the learned ASJ considered the deposition of ACP Jai Prakash(PW-10), the Raid Officer, which corroborated the case of the prosecution that the Appellant, being a public servant, had obtained a bribe of Rs. 4,000/- from the complainant, Vinod Kumar(PW-8), as a pecuniary advantage to himself. The trial court noticed that the report of the FSL further corroborated the fact that the Appellant had handled the treated GC notes in his right hand, which had turned pink as soon as the Appellant had washed his hand. Thus based on the evidence on record and the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the trial court has held the Appellant guilty of accepting illegal gratification. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, this Court is therefore prima facie of the opinion that the same does not suffer from any patent illegality, gross arbitrariness or palpable miscarriage of justice.

Cases relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be treated as ordinary cases, where sentence ought to be suspended just for the asking. In such cases, the complainant alone is not a victim, but the sufferer is the society at large, whose interests ought to be placed on a higher pedestal and the offender treated on a stricter footing. In the case of State of M.P. and Ors. v. Ram Singh reported as 2000 SCC 886 the Supreme Court observed as below:

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 current scenario prevailing in the country, it is quite evident that the evil of corruption is eating into the vitals of the social fabric and corroding the character of the nation, while eroding the confidence reposed by the society in public servants. Hence, the Courts must show extra caution while suspending sentence in a case of corruption. Further, even though the appellate court has ample powers and discretion to suspend the sentence, the said discretion has to be tempered with caution and exercised judicially depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Merely because the Appellant has preferred the present appeal, it cannot be urged that he is entitled to claim suspension of sentence as a matter of right, more so when an actual date of hearing has been fixed in the main appeal.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to grant suspension of sentence to the Appellant. As a result, the present application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The Appellant is directed to surrender before the trial court by 13.03.2011.