Jharkhand High Court
(Against The Judgment Of ... vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 22 November, 2021
1 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 364 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 364 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 )
------------
Smt. Shobha Sinha , daughter of Late Sahdev Prasad, aged about 67 years,
resident of Flat no. 98/9, Sarashwati Apartment, S.P. Verma Road, P.O.-
Kotwali, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Dist.- Patna, Bihar ...... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through the C.B.I. ..... Respondent
------------
For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate
Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate
For the C.B.I : Mr. Rohit 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. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the
appellant-convict submits that in continuation to the
submissions made by him on behalf of the appellant-convict
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 of
conviction 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 trial
court has held the appellant-convict guilty for the offences
and sentenced her as indicated below:-
2 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 364 of 2019
Sentence
Convict Offence Imprisonment Fine Default
Smt. Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) 5 years R.I. Rs. 10 lacs 6 months
Shobha (d) P.C. Act R.I.
Sinha 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 while appellant-convict was posted
and functioning as Assistant in the Road Construction Department
(RCD), Government of Bihar, Patna; in criminal conspiracy with the
co-accused persons, she gave suitable notes / comments upon the
relevant files calling fresh tender, laying grounds to facilitate the
senior RCD officials and ministers to take decision in the interest of
the transporters and for this act of her, she received illegal
gratification from the transporter co-convict, D.N. Singh and others.
The trial court observed in the impugned judgment that it is
admitted by the appellant-convict that she was posted and working
as Assistant during the relevant period in RCD, Patna, Bihar and the
evidences in the record establish that due to excess supply of bulk
bitumen without consideration of requirement and availability upon
the same were misappropriated. Referring to Exhibit H/1, which is
the relevant file, learned trial court has observed that the same
reveals that as per the desire of the co-convict, Ex-Minister Illiyas
Hussain, the appellant-convict gave her noting without putting facts
regarding requirement of bulk bitumen as well as earlier supplied
bitumen to the RCD division and she put her notes in favour of the
transporters, who had already been working, to allot the work for
three years without any tender process, which circumstance shows
the act of omission on the part of the appellant-convict to facilitate
the transporters succeed in their criminal conspiracy. It was also
observed by the learned trial court that and the charges against the
appellant-convict has been proved by the P.W. 38, corroborated by
Exhibit G series, H and H/1 and the trial court held that due to the
act of omission of the appellant-convict, she facilitated the
empanelment of the transporters and issuance of supply order.
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 364 of 2019
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
Exhibits 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/1 and further, two documents have been marked as Y and
Y/1.
5. Mr. Rohit 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 posted in a low post of Assistant and at
the most she has complied the directions of her superiors and she
herself was at no point of time having any authority to take any
decision herself involving the offence and she could not have taken
any decision herself for placing the supply order and as deposed by
P.W.23, she used to take only Rs. 5/- per MT of supply order of
bitumen. It is then submitted that the appellant -convict is an old
widow aged about 68 years and she is undergoing depression and
sinusitis and the appellant-convict during the trial, was remanded in
this case on 28.01.2000 and though she was admitted on bail vide
order dated 01.05.2000 but she furnished bail bond only on
09.05.2000. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for
the appellant-convict that the appellant-convict after conviction, has
4 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 364 of 2019
been in custody from 22.02.2019 but as her son was suffering from
liver cirrhosis and required liver transplantation the appellant-
convict was permitted to be enlarged on provisional bail by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court with effect from 10.02.2020 and the
appellant-convict was directed to surrender before the trial court by
12.03.2020 but the said provisional bail was extended up to
12.05.2020 by the co-ordinate Bench of this court and thereafter, the
appellant-convict surrendered on 08.02.2021 and since then, she has
been in custody till date. It is further submitted by learned senior
counsel for the appellant-convict that in the meanwhile, the son of
the appellant-convict has expired and she has to look after her young
widow daughter-in-law. It is next submitted by learned senior
counsel for the appellant-convict that the co-convict Kedar Paswan
in Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 457 of 2019, who also did not contest the
appeal on merit and he had been a little less than three years in
custody, taking together the custody during the trial and after
conviction, has been allowed vide judgment dated 18.11.2021 to be
released by reducing his substantial sentence for the period in
custody undergone and reducing the fine for the offences punishable
under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 to Rs. 15,000/-, hence, the sentence of this
appellant-convict be also reduced to the period, she has already
undergone in custody and the fine amount to be also reduced to Rs.
15,000/-.
8. Learned counsel for the C.B.I., Mr. Rohit 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.
9. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going
through the record carefully, 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
5 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 364 of 2019
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
in or before 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, 1988 is concerned, will be one year as
was prevalent before 16.1.2014. Considering the fact that the
appellant -convict is an old widow of 68 years age and she has lost
her son during the period she was given the provisional bail after
conviction and also the appellant-convict is undergoing depression
and sinusitis and the appellant-convict after undergone custody
during the trial from 28.01.2000 to 09.05.2000 and after conviction,
the appellant-convict was in custody in connection with this case
from 22.02.2019 to 10.02.2020, and from 08.02.2021 to till date as also
the fact that she is facing the rigors of the criminal trial since the year
1997 and she was admittedly a lowly place employee in the post of
assistant, the substantive 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 as well as the offences
6 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 364 of 2019
punishable under section 120B r/w 420, 407, 467, 468, and 471 IPC
r/w Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) P.C. Act, is reduced to the period,
she has already undergone in custody each which shall run
concurrently and fine of Rs. 15,000/- each for the said two conviction
separately and in default of paying the fine of Rs. 15,000/-each, the
appellant-convict has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one
month each for each of the set of offences. In case, the appellant-
convict deposits the fine amount of Rs.30,000/- that is ₹ 15,000/-each
for the each set of offences, she shall be released from the custody
forthwith unless her detention is required in any other case.
10. 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.
11. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 22nd November, 2021.
AFR/Smita-Pappu
