$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 28th October, 2014
+ Crl.M.B.1008/2014 in CRL.A. 617/2014
SUBHASH CHAND PHULL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr Suresh Tripathy Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State alongwith SI
Bupender Singh Police Station AC.
Branch.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
JUDGMENT
: SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Crl.M.B.1008/2014 (for suspension of sentence)
1. This is an application moved by the appellant seeking suspension of his sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant has been convicted u/s 7/13(1)d, 13(2) of PC Act read with Section 120B of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and fine of Rs.50,000, in default simple imprisonment for 6 months u/s 7 of PC Act; RI of 2 years and fine of Rs.25,000, in default SI of 2 months u/s120B IPC; 3 years RI and fine of Rs.50,000, in default SI for 6 months u/s 7 of PC Act read with Section 120B; RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default SI for 6 months u/s 13(i)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act Crl.M.B.1008/14 in Crl.A.617/2014 Page 1 of 4 read with Section 120B IPC respectively. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that demand and acceptance of money for doing a favour in discharge of official duty is sina qua non to the conviction of the accused. Moreover, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the appellant was in a position to do a favour or influence a decision either way. The impugned judgment fails to meet this requirement of law.
2. It was alleged by the complainant that the appellant Subhash Chand Phull was a member of Delhi Jal Board and demanded huge amount of bribe from him to award the contract and on not paying the same, he ordered for retendering. It was submitted that this allegation deserves outright rejection as NDMC work was never approved or awarded in favour of the complainant. Moreover the complainant admitted that appellant had no role in respect of the work awarded by NDMC. According to him, he met the accused for the first time in second week of February in respect of his work and that in second week of February 2006, the accused had taken retirement. Since the appellant was no longer in service in the second week of February 2006, as such it is highly improbable that the complainant would meet a retired person to seek a favour. The allegations that on not paying the bribe amount, appellant ordered retendering is again false, as decision to tender the work took place on 30.03.2006 by the Board comprising of 17 persons. Moreover the appellant had no financial power to sanction or award the work as his Crl.M.B.1008/14 in Crl.A.617/2014 Page 2 of 4 financial power was limited to Rs.50 lakhs only whereas the work had cost component of Rs.24 crores. The further allegations regarding some work in Trans Yamuna area was not subject matter of the charge and as such the findings of the learned Trial Court without framing any charge in this regard caused prejudice to the appellant.
3. The third allegation that the appellant obtained a complaint from rival company Envirotech with whom complainant was having disputes for black listing the complainant again is false. It was submitted that the findings of the learned Trial Court for invoking Section 7 of the P.C Act by holding that appellant was "expecting to be a public servant" was unwarranted. It was lastly submitted that the complainant was an unreliable witness as he himself was facing trial in several cases and testimony of a person of dubious character could not have been considered for convicting the appellant.
4. Lastly it was submitted that the appellant is in custody for the last more than 6 months. He is aged about 68 years and is suffering from Parkinson disease, as such during the pendency of the appeal, the sentence be suspended and he be released on bail.
5. The application is opposed by learned APP for the State and it was submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations and the sentence awarded to the appellant, he is not entitled to be released on bail. Crl.M.B.1008/14 in Crl.A.617/2014 Page 3 of 4
6. The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant requires consideration. The appeal is not likely to be heard in the immediate future. It is alleged that the appellant is suffering from Parkinson disease and high blood pressure. Under the circumstances it is directed that the sentence awarded to the appellant be suspended during the pendency of the appeal, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant shall be released on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;
(ii) Deposit of fine shall be a condition precedent for release on bail;
(iii) The appellant shall not leave the country without the prior permission of this Court;
(iv) He shall surrender his passport with the Registrar of this Court;
(v) He shall furnish his address and contact number to the respondent and this Court and also inform in case of any change in his address;
(vi) He shall remain present in Court as and when the appeal is taken up for hearing.
Application stands disposed of.
Dasti under the signature of Court Master.
(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE OCTOBER 28, 2014 as Crl.M.B.1008/14 in Crl.A.617/2014 Page 4 of 4