Kishori Lal vs State
1999 Latest Caselaw 708 Del

ORDER

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

<-p>1. The appellant was convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced for one year R.I. and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to undergone R.I. for three months. The appellant was also convicted under Section 161 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Both the sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:

3. The appellant was a Sanitary Guide, in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. One Rattan Lal, a Safai Karamchari was posted in Vivek Vihar. The accused was a Supervisor and used to mark the attendance of Rattan Lal. Ratan Lal made a complaint against the accused that he demanded Rs. 40/- per month and threatened him that if he did not pay this amount regularly, the appellant would mark him, absent even if he were present on duty.

4. On 15.9.76 accused asked Rattan Lal to pay his monthly payment of Rs. 40/-. Rattan Lal promised him to pay the amount at the time of next roll call at 2.00 PM. This time was utilized in making the complaint against the accused. On his complaint raid was organized in usual manner by the Anti Corruption Branch to catch the appellant red handed in the act of receiving the amount from the complainant on the same date and the appellant walked into the trap.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits. He prayed that the appellant be released on the sentence of imprisonment which he had already undergone. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, I do not deem it necessary to deal with other aspects of this case.

6. The appellant filed appeal before this Court and was granted bail on 10th January, 1978. The appellant, had already undergone sentence of imprisonment for some time. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of the commission of the offence the appellant was more than 50 years of age and now he should be more than 73 years of age.

7. It is submitted that the appellant has faced the agony and trauma of criminal proceedings, trial and ignominy and humiliation of the conviction for over two decades. The learned counsel further submits that looking to the totality of the fact and circumstances of this case the ends of justice would meet if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period which the accused appellant had already undergone.

8. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarup Chand Vs. State of Punjabi reported in 1987(1) Crimes 818. In this case the appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 161 IPC and under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. While maintaining the conviction the Supreme Court had reduced the sentence to the period already undergone on the ground that six years have passed from the date of the incident and this is the first time the appellant had committed of offence. In the instant case, 23 years have lapsed since the date of the incidence and the appellant has not been involved in other criminal cases.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the judgment of this Court in the judgment of Inder Parkash Shingal Vs. State; 38 (1989) Delhi Law Times (SN) 5. In this case also the accused appellant was convicted under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (1) (d) & 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court reduced the sentence of the imprisonment of appellant to the period already undergone on the ground that the appellant has faced the agony of trial for about 18 years now.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on some of the decided cases in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of R.G. Goswami Vs. Delhi Administration; 1978 SCC (Crl.) 796, observed as under : "Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining the question. In modern civilised societies; however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentence both loss their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after seven years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and has to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain the same."

11. This case has been followed in a number of subsequent judgments by the Supreme Court and various other courts. In Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of M.P. , while referring to the judgment of B.G. Goswami Vs. Delhi Administration (supra), the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, in a case where the accused was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.

12. In the instant case, the incident had taken place in 1976. The basic facts regarding the delay are quite akin to the facts of Shri Ramesh Kumar Gupta Case (supra). The appellant had undergone some part of the sentence and faced trauma of criminal proceedings for almost 23 years.

13. On consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances of this case, in my considered opinion the ends of justice shall be meet by upholding the conviction of the appellant. However, the sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.

14. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.