Triloki Nath vs Union of India (UOI)

C.M. Totla, J.—Appellant facing trial before the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Jodhpur in Special Criminal Case No. 4/86 vide judgment dated 5.10.87, is held guilty and sentenced (i) for the offence of Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d), PC Act � four years'' rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs. 1,000/- - for non-payment three months'' rigorous imprisonment; (ii) Section 420 IPC � four years'' rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs. 4,000/- - for non payment six months'' rigorous imprisonment; (iii) Section 468 IPC � four years'' rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs. 1,000/- - for non-payment of which three months'' rigorous imprisonment; (iv) Section 120B IPC � six years'' rigorous imprisonment with fine Rs. 1,000/- - for non-payment, two months'' rigorous imprisonment. All substantive sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved of above conviction and sentence, is this appeal.

Along with appellant, by the impugned judgment, also is convicted one Kameshwar Dayal for the offence of Section 420 IPC and Section 120B IPC, who allegedly was brother-in-law of appellant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant narrating alleged facts and arguing a little, submitted that not press on merits argues only for the quantum of sentence. Learned Counsel thrustly submitted that it a very fit case for awarding less than minimum prescribed and sufficient strong reasons for it, per him, exist for it.

Considering above submissions and also examining alleged relevant facts and evidence adduced, a little appear that at relevant time, appellant was employed and working as Assistant Mechanical Engineer with Hindustan Zinc Smelter, Devari and in August, 1990, Assistant Mechanical Engineers PW 3 and PW 5 lodged and initiated a departmental like complaint Ex.7, alleging that Shri Triloki Nath Bhargava (appellant) a Government officer, is doing business with help of others, has obtained contract in the name of M/s. Motor Machinery Manufacturer Amal-ka-Kanta, Udiapur which is home address of appellant and contract work was carried out in workshop by detaining fitter and others on over time and while getting the work so done by employees appellant, was caught red-handed. It appears that on a source information, in August, 1975, FIR No. 28/75 was registered against appellant and other three that they hatching conspiracy, getting orders in favour of fictitious firm and getting work done by the labourers in the premises of the establishment fraudulently obtained sum of Rs. 4,000/-. After investigation, charge-sheet submitted in July, 1976 against appellant and these others.

Learned Special Judge dealing with evidence and facts in detail, arrived at conclusions (i) appellant working in Government establishment Hindustan Zinc Ltd., was public servant; (ii) appellant himself signing and making signatures in the name of his wife on Ex.P8 and correspondence Exs. P10 and 11, committing forgery; (iii) conspiratorially procured and facilitated work orders Ex.P9 and Ex.P14 (for firm and brother-in-law); (iv) conspiring with brother-in-law co-accused K.D. Bhargava, submitted duplicate bills Exs.P38 and 39, whereas for the job done and supply made, bill earlier was submitted on 27.03.1970; (v) work got done by other employees and on basis of bills payment Rs. 4,000/- made to K.D. Bhargava who encashed cheque on 20.08.1971.

For prosecution, examined are 34 witnesses and in defence, examined two witnesses. Among the prosecution witnesses Smt. Santosh PW 34 is wife of appellant who testified that on Exs.P3, 11, 23 and 24 are not her signatures. Handwriting expert PW 26 also opines so. Appellant himself accepts so but with rider that did so on telling of his wife, whereas PW 34 Smt. Santosh Bhargava state of having asked appellant to sign only on Ex.P8.

Learned Counsel for the appellant arguing only for the quantum of sentence and not challenging conviction, urges that appellant is now more than 80 years, very seriously ill and also suffering from severe heart ailment � remained in custody for about ten days and incident very old one so now appropriate shall be to reduce the sentence to the already undergone. Learned Counsel submits that appellant not in employment � services over about 30 years ago and facing this trial and all agony suffer for more than 30 years. In support of contentions, placed reliance on Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab, , Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab. Submitted that justified, looking to all facts, is punishment less than minimum prescribed for the offence of Section 5 and which in appropriate cases can be.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that if on stated facts and time elapsed, sentence of undergone is awarded, then appropriate enhancement for fine should be.

Considered the arguments. Appellant is convicted u/s 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. For appropriate and very strong reasons, lesser than minimum prescribed sentence can be as is observed by the Hon''ble Apex Courlt in Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, and followed thereafter. In appropriate cases, for very strong straight reasons less than statutory prescribed minimum can be but this should be in very exceptional cases and is to be based on strong reasons as is also observed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Harendra Nath Chakraborty Vs. State of West Bengal,

Present is a case u/s 5 of the 1947 Act. Incident is of the year, 1970-71 and charge-sheet submitted only in July, 1976 and the case registered could be decided only in the year, 1987. Per record, seems that the appellant remained in custody only for 9-10 days � now it is almost 40 years to the incident and appellant''s services were terminated in the year nineteen eighties or early. Reckoning from as described on the record, appellant perhaps now above 75 years and has undergone all the agonies and sufferance for more than 35-40 years. Considering all these peculiar aspects on above facts, in the opinion of the Court, now it shall be just and appropriate to sentence appellant for the period already undergone but suitably enhanced fine. The incident involves Rs. 4,000/- in the year, 1971, looking to inflation and other related factors, in the opinion of the Court, fine is to be enhanced to Rs. 45,000/- and in default of payment of fine, appellant to undergo four months'' rigorous imprisonment.

Accordingly, accepting appeal partly and uphelding the conviction of the appellant for the each offences of Sections 5(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 468 and Sections 120B and 420 IPC, he is sentenced to the period already undergone with fine for Section 5(1)(d) - Rs. 25,000/-, for Section 120B IPC � Rs. 2,500/-, for Section 468 IPC � Rs. 2,500 and for Section 420 IPC � Rs. 15,000/-, total Rs. 45,000/- and in default of payment sentences rigorous imprisonment respectively 2 months, 7 days, 7 days and 45 days.

Of the above fine, Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited by May 30, 2010 and remaining by July 7, 2010 in the trial Court, failing which to appear before the trial Court. Complying as above, appellant''s bail bonds shall stand discharged.

Accordingly, the appeal stands decided.