Subhash Chand Phull vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 5297 Del

Citation : 2014 Latest Caselaw 5297 Del
Judgement Date : 28 October, 2014

Delhi High Court

Subhash Chand Phull vs State on 28 October, 2014

$~
*         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

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

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.

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;