Bombay High Court
Yogiraj Dattatraya Bharti vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 April, 2016
Bench: I.K. Jain
1
cra436.00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 436 OF 2000
Yogiraj s/o Dattatraya Bharti,
aged 45 years,
occ. Junior Cler, M.S.E.B. Office,
r/o Parli, Tq. Vaijnath,
District Beed ...Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
***
Mr. P.F.Patni, advocate h/f
Shri Satej S. Jadhav, advocate for the Appellant
Mr. S.N.Morampalle, APP for Respondent
***
CORAM : INDIRA K. JAIN, J.
DATED : 18th APRIL, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and
order, dated 10.10.2000, passed by the learned Special Judge,
Ambajogai, in Special Case No. 5 of 1998 convicting the appellant of
the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
1 of 6
cra436.00
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. By the said judgment and order,
appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and
fine of Rs.2,500/- with default clause for each of the offences.
2] Prosecution case, in brief, is as under .
(i) Appellant was working as Lower Division Clerk
with Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Beed. The
work of issuance of electricity bill was assigned on
contract basis. Sambhaji Phad was a consumer of
M.S.E.B.
ig He was acquainted with the appellant.
Sambhaji was running an oil mill and rice mill.
Electricity connection for rice mill was taken in the
name of Sambhaji and for oil mill it was in the name
of son of Sambhaji. Appellant used to visit the mills of
Sambhaji and his family.
(ii) It is the case of prosecution that accused
demanded Rs.5,000/- from Anil son of Sambhaji for
reducing electricity bill. On 5.1.1996 Anil went to Anti
Corruption Office, Beed and lodged report. A trap
was arranged. It was successful.
(iii) After completing investigation, charge sheet
was submitted to the Special Court.
3] Prosecution examined in all ten witnesses to
substantiate the guilt of accused. Accused examined two witnesses
in support of his defence. Considering the evidence of prosecution
2 of 6
cra436.00
witnesses and defence raised by accused, Trial Court found the
accused guilty and convicted of the offences as stated in para 1
above.
4] Heard Shri P.F.Patni, advocate holding for Shri Satej S.
Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.N.Morampalle,
learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State.
5]
The learned counsel for appellant submits that incident
is of the year 1996. Appellant is now aged 70 and he was on death
bed. He is not keeping well. The learned counsel submits that
departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant. He
was terminated from the services. Criminal Appeal was filed in the
year 2000. Fifteen years have already passed. Considering the
special reasons, learned counsel submitted that appellant is ready to
pay the reasonable fine if enhanced and prays that appellant be
released on the sentence already undergone.
6] In support of submissions learned counsel for the
appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
V.K.Verma vs Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2014) 3
SCC 485. Para 8 and 13 of the said judgment read thus :-
3 of 6
cra436.00
" 8. The long delay before the courts in taking a final decision
with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the
mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into
consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of
sentence. As we have noted above, the FIR was registered by
the CBI in 1984. The matter came before the sessions court only
in 1994. The sessions court took almost ten years to conclude
the trial and pronounce the judgment. Before the High Court, it
took another ten years. Thus, it is a litigation of almost three
decades in a simple trap case and that too involving a petty
amount.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The substantive
sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already
undergone. However, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is imposed as
fine. The appellant shall deposit the fine within three months
and, if not, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of six
months. On payment of fine, his bail bond will stand cancelled. "
7] Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
submitted that no special reasons exist to reduce the the sentence to
undergone. Learned A.P.P. submits that appellant was in jail only for
four days and same would not be adequate sentence in view of
seriousness of offences.
8] It is a matter of record that incident occurred on
2.1.1996. Appellant was arrested on 6.1.1996. Charge sheet was
filed in 1998. Trial Court delivered judgment in 2000. Appeal was
preferred before this Court in 2000. Record further indicates that
appellant was on death bed. He could not remain present on many
4 of 6
cra436.00
occasions and non-bailable warrants were issued against him which
came to be cancelled on the ground of his ill health.
9] It is not in dispute that appellant is now aged 70. He
has already undergone mental incarceration for about 20 years. In
these circumstances, this Court is of the view that no purpose would
be served in keeping the appellant in jail. In view of the special
reasons, this Court finds that the following order would serve the
ends of justice.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2000 is partly
allowed.
(ii) The judgment of conviction is maintained.
(iii) The order of sentence is modified and
substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to
the period already undergone. However, an amount
of Rs.25,000/- is imposed as fine for each of the
offences.
(iv) Appellant shall deposit the fine within six
weeks. If fine is not deposited, appellant shall
undergo the imprisonment as awarded by the Trial
Court.
5 of 6
cra436.00
(v) Bail bonds of the appellant shall stand
cancelled.
[ INDIRA K. JAIN, J.]
dbm/cra436.00
6 of 6
