Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha vs Iswari Prasad Purohit & on 4 December, 2023
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
GCRLA NO. 01 OF 2023
State of Odisha .... Appellant/
Petitioner
Mr. Sangram Das,
Standing Counsel (Vigilance)
-versus-
Iswari Prasad Purohit & .... Respondent/
another Opposite Parties
None
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No.
04.12.2023
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical Mode).
Heard Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant-State.
This Government Criminal Appeal has been filed by
the State of Odisha under section 377 of Cr.P.C.
challenging the inadequacy of sentence and for
enhancement of the sentence passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge
(Vigilance), Bhawanipatna, Kalahandi in G.R. (Vigilance)
Case No.17 of 2014/ T.R. No.10 of 2015.
It appears that the respondents, Iswari Prasad
Purohit and Kali Prasad Tandi faced trial in the said Court
for the offences punishable under section 7 and sections
// 2 //
13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, 'P.C. Act') and section 109
of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'I.P.C.'). Learned trial
Court vide judgment and order dated 24.06.2023 found
Iswari Prasad Purohit, i.e., respondent no.1, guilty under
sections 7 & 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and so far as
respondent no.2, Kali Prasad Tandi is concerned, he was
not found guilty under sections 7 & 13(1)(d) of the P.C.
Act and section 109 of the I.P.C. and he was acquitted of
all the charges. So far as respondent no.1 is concerned,
he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two and half years
for the offence under section 7 of the P.C. Act and to pay
fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for
three months and for the offence under section 13(2)
read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act, he was
directed to undergo R.I. for three and half years and to
pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo further R.I.
for three months. The substantive sentences of
imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.
When this Government Criminal Appeal has been
filed for enhancement of sentence of respondent no.1,
there was no need to implead respondent no.2, Kali
Prasad Tandi. Therefore, it is to be treated that
respondent no.2, Kali Prasad Tandi is not a party in this
GCRLA.
Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel for the
Vigilance Department submitted that the demand of bribe
was made on 09.09.2014 and the trap was made on
10.09.2014. Section 7 of the P.C. Act deals that the
// 3 //
offence relating to public servant being bribed. The
provision states as follows:
"Any public servant who,--
(a) obtains or accepts or attempts to
obtain from any person, an undue
advantage, with the intention to perform
or cause performance of public duty
improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or
cause forbearance to perform such duty
either by himself or by another public
servant; or
(b) obtains or accepts or attempts to
obtain, an undue advantage from any
person as a reward for the improper or
dishonest performance of a public duty or
for forbearing to perform such duty either
by himself or another public servant; or
(c) performs or induces another public
servant to perform improperly or
dishonestly a public duty or to forbear
performance of such duty in anticipation of
or in consequence of accepting an undue
advantage from any person,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for
a term which shall not be less than three
years but which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine."
Similarly, section 13(2) of the P.C. Act states
that any public servant who commits criminal misconduct
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which
shall be not less than four years but which may extend to
ten years and shall also be liable to fine. The aforesaid
// 4 //
two provisions were amended in the year 2014 which
came with effect from 16.01.2024. Since the occurrence
in question took place after the amendment came into
force, the learned trial Court has got no authority to
award a sentence lesser than the minimum sentence
prescribed for the offences under sections 7 as well as
sections 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act
inasmuch as both the sections do not give any discretion
to the Court to reduce the sentence from the minimum
sentence prescribed in view of certain special
circumstances involved in the case.
Learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance
Department further submits that imposition of sentence
lesser than the minimum sentence prescribed under both
the offences is illegal, and therefore, the same is liable to
be set aside.
Admit.
Issue notice.
Requisites for issuance of notice to respondent
no.1, Iswari Prasad Purohit shall be filed within one week
from today.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
respondent no.1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.692 of
2023 before this Court challenging the judgment and
order of conviction.
Henceforth, the GCRLA shall be listed with CRLA
No.692 of 2023.
(P.T.O)
// 5 //
Free copy of this order be supplied to the learned
Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department.
(S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
M.K.Rout
