Delhi High Court
Bhanu Pratap Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 20 November, 2007
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
ORDER
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
CRL.MA.No.12784/2007
1. This application under Section 389 Cr.P.C is preferred on behalf of the appellant for stay effect of operation of the judgment dated 17th October, 2007 passed by learned Special Judge and suspension of sentence of the appellant who was convicted by the trial court under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention and Corruption Act (in short, "the Act").
2. The appellant was working as Sub Inspector with Delhi Police, Crime Cell and was posted at Central District Crime Cell. He was investigating a case against the complainant registered vide FIR No. 99 of 1998 Police Station Karol Bagh under Sections 342/323/506 IPC. The complainant alleged that the appellant had demanded a bribe from him for hushing up the case. Since he was willing to pay the bribe, he made a complaint regarding this demand of bribe to Anti Corruption Cell. A trap was laid and a sum of Rs.5000/-, quoted with phenolphthalein power, was given to the complainant to be paid to the appellant during the trap. The appellant was caught red-handed with the bribe money. His hand-wash turned pink showing that he had handled the tainted money. His pocket-wash also turned pink showing that he had kept the tainted money in his pocket. A case under the Act against the appellant ended in his conviction. He was sentenced to two and half years of RI under Section 7 with fine and three years RI under Section 13(2) of the Act.
3. It is submitted by counsel for the appellant that suspension of sentence is a normal rule and denial of suspension of sentence would be an exception. The Court should, in normal course, suspend the sentence, more so when the sentence awarded is for a fixed number of years. The case of the appellant, according to him, was more stronger since the sentence awarded was only 3 years and his sentence was suspended by the trial court after pronouncement of the judgment.
4. The statute has not provided suspension of sentence as a matter of right of the convict. If the Legislature wanted that sentence of a convict by the appellate court has to be suspended as a matter of right, nobody prevented the Legislature from framing a law in that manner. Section 389 Cr.P.C gives discretion to the Court to suspend the sentence in appropriate cases keeping in view the right of the accused to prefer an appeal against his conviction. The purpose of suspending a sentence is that this right may not become merely a paper right and by the time appeal is heard, the accused has already undergone the sentence. Despite this philosophy behind suspension of sentence, the Court has been given discretion to reject the plea of suspension of sentence in appropriate cases keeping in view the severity and heinousness of the crime and other prevalent circumstances. The Court has to balance the right of the accused as well as rights of the society while deciding the application for suspension of sentence. In the instant case, the appellant was working as a police officer. The duty of a police officer is to protect people from the crime, to investigate the crime, to maintain law and order in the society, to act in accordance with law and to uphold the rule of law. Despite all the campaigns launched by the police administration to project the police as a friend of people, the reality is that it is today considered as a necessary evil in the society to be tolerated by the society. When a police investigator, responsible for investigating the crime, indulges himself into the crime, he shakes the very foundation of criminal justice system. The first brush of the people in the criminal justice system is through police and this first brush with the police, when shakes the confidence of the people in the criminal justice system, an enormous damage is done to the system.
5. The courts, no doubt, have to be conscious of trapping of innocent officers at the behest of unscrupulous persons but in the instant case, the appellant has given no explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C about recovery of money from him and about the trap. His statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C reveals that when he came to office, he was forcibly taken away by 5/6 persons behind the office parking where he was made to sign some blank papers. Thereafter, he answered every question about the recovery and trap as "It is incorrect". Where a police officer takes a stand that he was forcibly taken away by 5/6 persons and was made to sign some papers, it is expected by a police officer that he would immediately lodge a complaint about his alleged kidnapping and signing of papers but he did not lodge any complaint against this alleged kidnapping and forcibly getting signed some papers with any authority or with the senior police officers or to even to his own department. He did not lodge an FIR about his forcibly being taken away. His not explaining about the recovery of Rs.5000/-bribe money from him, turning of his hand-wash pink, in any manner. There being no complaint lodged by him against false implication coupled with his conviction by the learned trial court, dilutes the initial presumption of innocence very strongly in this case. Taking of bribe by a Sub Inspector of Police for hushing up a criminal case lodged against a person, cannot be looked upon as a trivial offence. The devil of corruption seems to have made deep in roads in the criminal justice system at initial level. Supreme Court in State of M.P. and Ors. v. Ram Singh 2000 SCC (Cri.) 886 observed as under:
8. Corruption in a civilized society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to maliganise (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.
6. I consider that the appellant who was a police officer and was caught red- handed, cannot be looked upon as an innocent person. It is not that a person caught with bribe money is always a first-time corrupt. He may have been indulging into corrupt practices for a long number of years but has been caught for the first time because the person from whom he demanded bribe could dare complain.
7. Keeping in view the above premise, it is not a fit case where the Court should suspend the sentence of the appellant. His application is hereby dismissed. However, I consider that the appeal of the appellant should be decided at an early date. dusty, if desired. Crl.Appeal.No.709/2007 List this appeal for final arguments on 25th February, 2008.
