Jharkhand High Court
(Against The Judgment Of ... vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 18 November, 2021
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 457 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 457 of 2019
------------
(Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
22.02.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. No. 02
(A)/ 1997-R )
------------
Kedar Paswan, aged about 71 years, son of Late Pawan Paswan @ Late
Raman Paswa, Resident of Village- Kharsari, P.S. - Kowakale, P.O.-
Kharsari (Old Mahapur) District- Nawadah
...... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through the CBI/SPE/Ranchi
..... Respondent
------------
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Senior Advocate
For the C.B.I : Ms. Nitu Sinha, Advocate
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
Though this appeal is directed against the Judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2019 passed by
learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. No. 02 (A)/
1997(R), Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the
appellant-convict submits that in continuation to the
submissions made by him before this court on 16.11.2021 the
appellant-convict does not want to contest this appeal on
merit and he confines his arguments only to sentence imposed
upon the appellant-convict by the trial court in the impugned
judgment and order of sentence.
2. By the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 22.02.2019 passed by learned Special Judge,
C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. No. 02 (A)/ 1997-R, the learned court
has held the appellant-convict guilty for the offences
punishable under following offences and had sentenced them
as indicated below:-
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 457 of 2019
Sentence
Convict Offence Imprisonment Fine
Default
Kedar Section 13 (2) r/w 13 5 years R.I. Rs. 10 lacs 6 months
Paswan (1) (d) P.C. Act R.I.
Section 120B r/w 420, 2 years R.I. Rs. 10 lacs 6 months
407, 467, 468, and 471 R.I.
IPC r/w Section 13(2)
r/w 13(1) (d) P.C. Act
3. The brief facts of this case is that the appellant-convict while
functioning as the Director (purchase and transport) in the office of
the Engineer-in-chief, RCD, Government of Bihar, Patna, in flagrant
disregard to the procedures, processed and recommended the
issuance of supply order for 1500 MT bulk bitumen to the RCD,
Chatra Division, having knowledge about the previous supply order
for the said division and he never dissented to the proposal for
supply of bitumen in order to process the same and for this act of
commission, he accepted the illegal gratification from the transporter
co-convict, D.N. Singh at the rate of ₹ 10 per MT.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined forty-
six witnesses and proved the documents which have been marked as
Exhibits 1 to 60 and several documents have also been marked as X
to X/40. From the side of the defence also, one witness has been
examined as D.W.1 and from the side of the defence, the documents
were proved which have been marked as Exhibits A to Exhibit J and
J/1 and further, two documents have been marked as Y and Y/1.
5. Learned trial court after taking into consideration the evidence in the
record, observed that the appellant-convict admitted that he was the
Director (purchase and transport) in the office of the Engineer-in-
chief, RCD, Government of Bihar, Patna in additional charge during
the relevant period but the fact that in absence of any requisition for
bulk bitumen from the RCD, Chatra and as without mentioning in
his noting about any requirement of bulk bitumen for RCD Chatra,
he was instrumental in placing order for supply by issuing the
supply order though there was no capacity for storage of the
aforesaid bulk bitumen nor the allotted fund was sufficient; even
then, the said supply order was issued by the appellant-convict in
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 457 of 2019
favour of the co-convict transporter and basing on these
circumstances and the evidence in the record in this respect, learned
court below held him guilty for the said offences and convicted and
sentenced him, as already indicated above.
6. Ms. Nitu Sinha, the learned counsel for the Central Bureau of
Investigation defends the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence and submits that as there is ample evidence in the
record to bring home the charges hence neither the judgment of
conviction nor the order of sentence warrants interference in this
appeal and submits that this appeal being without any merit be
dismissed.
7. Since the appeal is not contested on merit hence this court is not
inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction.
Accordingly the impugned judgment of conviction dated 22.02.2019
passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. No. 02 (A)/
1997-R is confirmed.
8. So far as the sentence of the appellant -convict is concerned, it is
submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant-convict that
the appellant-convict was the in-charge by way of additional charge
of the office of Director (purchase and transport) in the office of the
Engineer-in-chief, RCD, Government of Bihar, Patna, only for few
months and he is in no way concerned with the supply made after
his demitting the office and the only allegation against him is that
he was instrumental in issue of supply order for 1500 MT of bitumen
and he allegedly took ₹ 10 per MT of bitumen which in total comes
to ₹ 15,000/- only. It is then submitted that the appellant-convict is
an old person of 73 years age as on today and he has already
undergone angioplasty as well as by-pass surgery and he is a
diabetic person, hence, he requires constant medication. It further
submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant -convict that
the appellant-convict has already undergone rigors of criminal trial
since 1997 to till date and during the trial, he had been in custody
from 31.01.2002 to 02.05.2002 and after his conviction, he has been in
custody since 22.02.2019 to till date, hence, it is submitted that the
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 457 of 2019
appellant-convict be sentenced for the period, he has already
undergone in custody.
9. Learned counsel for the C.B.I., Mrs. Nitu Sinha submits that after the
amendment the minimum sentence for the offence punishable under
section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is 4 years it is then
submitted that the fine amount imposed upon the appellant-convict
ought not be interfered with.
10. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar it is pertinent to
mention here that it is a settled principle of law that the minimum
sentence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 has been enhanced by Act 1 of 2014 with effect from 16-1-
2014, will not be applicable to the cases in which the incident in
question relates to the period prior to the said date as has been held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gurjant Singh
Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 8 SCC 650 paragraph- 15 and
16 of which read as under:-
"15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
sentence awarded by the trial court is harsh, and the same may at
least be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. It is
further submitted by him that the sentence of imprisonment awarded
by the trial court is much more than the minimum sentence
prescribed under law as it stood in 2003. It is relevant to mention here
that the minimum sentence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been enhanced by Act 1 of
2014 with effect from 16-1-2014, but the incident in question relates
to the period prior to the said date. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of rupees
one lakh would meet the ends of justice in the present case.
16. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from
a period of three years to a period of two years without interfering
with the sentence of fine recorded by the trial court. With this
modification in the sentence, the appeal stands disposed of."
It is needless to mention that the incident involved in this case was
prior to the year 1997 thus the minimum sentence applicable in this
case so far as the offence punishable under section 13 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, will be one year as was
prevalent before 16.1.2014. Considering the fact that the appellant -
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 457 of 2019
convict is an old person of 73 years age, and the allegation against
the appellant -convict is only of receiving Rs. 10/- per MT of bulk
bitumen that comes out in total to Rs 15,000/- and also keeping in
view that the appellant-convict has undergone custody during the
trial and after his conviction taken together for a period of a little less
than three years i.e. during the trial , he had been in custody from
31.01.2002 to 02.05.2002 and after his conviction, he has been in
custody since 22.02.2019 to till date, this Court is of the considered
view that the sentence of the appellant-convict, so far as offence
punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, be reduced to the period, he has
already undergone in custody and fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default
of paying the fine of Rs. 15,000/-, the appellant-convict has to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. Further as the
appellant-convict has already undergone custody for more than two
years and six months, this Court does not want to interfere with the
sentence so far as offence punishable under Section 120B read with
Sections 420, 407, 467, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code read with
Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act is concerned. In case, the appellant-convict deposits
the fine amount of Rs. 15,000/-, he shall be released from the
custody forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case.
11. This appeal is disposed of with modification in sentence only and in
view of the disposal of this appeal, the interlocutory application, if
any, also stands disposed of.
12. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 18th November, 2021.
AFR/Smita
