Satya Narain vs State
2022 Latest Caselaw 5423 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 9/1986

Satyanarayan Gupta son of Hari Prasad Gupta, Resident of Alwar
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                     Versus
The State of Rajasthan
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Devendra Raghava
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, PP



    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

                                      Order

ORDER RESERVED ON                          ::                     22.07.2022


ORDER PRONOUNCED ON                         ::                     03.08.2022

Appellant has filed the appeal challenging the judgment &

order dated 16.12.1985 passed by Special Judge, ACD Cases,

Jaipur in Special Criminal Case No.16/1981, whereby appellant

was convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under

Section 161 IPC and Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as follows:-

u/s 161 IPC - One year rigorous imprisonment.

U/s 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act -

Sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and

fine of Rs.100/-; in default of payment thereof, to

further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2 of 5) [CRLA-9/1986]

Prosecution story, in brief, is that Sua Lal lodged an oral

report before Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption

Department, Bharatpur that he was doing the business of grains

and wanted to take loan from Khadi Board, Bharatpur for

Rs.1000/-. He had given an application for this on 28.11.1980.

Appellant was supervisor in Khadi Board. He demanded the bribe

of Rs.200/- for survey report. He had given Rs.100/- in front of

Chetram and Girraj Prasad in accused house. During the trap

proceedings, two note 50 each total Rs.100/- recovered from the

accused house.

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities,

challan was presented against the appellant.

Charges were framed against the appellant under Section

161 IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) Prevention

of Corruption Act.

In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution examined

13 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 and produced 4 witnesses in his

defence.

Trial court vide judgment and order dated 16.12.1985,

ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under

Section 161 IPC and Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2)

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Hence, the present appeal by

the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial

court had erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the

appellant and also submitted that trial court had not read the

prosecution evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel for the

appellant also submitted that evidence of complainant Sua Lal and

(3 of 5) [CRLA-9/1986]

other witnesses Shyam Singh, Chetram and Girraj Prasad are

contradictory. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted

that they are interested witnesses. Learned counsel for the

appellant also submitted that Shyam Singh had enmity with the

appellant, so, he used the complainant Sua Lal in lodging the false

report against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant

also submitted that the loan applications of the relatives of Shyam

Singh were rejected, so, Shyam Singh annoyed with the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that complainant

had given affidavit before Investigating Officer that he had lodged

the report on the instigation of Shyam Singh. Learned counsel for

the appellant also submitted that the appellant in his defence

produce the witnesses DW-1 Sugad Singh, who prepared the

affidavit and stamp vendor Moti Lal. Learned counsel for the

appellant also submitted that evidence of the independent

witnesses PW-2 Girraj Kishore and PW-4 Jawahar Lal Sharma is

contradictory. They clearly stated that at the time of trap

proceedings, Satyanarayan clearly stated that Sua Lal had put

money there. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted

that Lala Ram was present at that time but Investigating Officer

had not investigated him. During trial, prosecution had not

examined Lala Ram.

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that as per

prosecution witness PW-5 Radhey Shyam in his statement clearly

stated that no work was pending at the time of incident before the

appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that

defence evidence clearly supported the appellant's case. Defence

DW-3 Surendra Kumar Jain had clearly stated that file was

received in his office prior to incident. Learned counsel for the

(4 of 5) [CRLA-9/1986]

appellant also submitted that defence witness DW-4 G.S. Sandhu

in his evidence clearly stated that affidavit filed by Sua Lal was

read over to him and he had attested the affidavit. So, the

appellant be acquitted.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that

prosecution has proved the case beyond the reasonable doubt

because complainant in his evidence proved the complaint by him

and other witnesses had fully supported the story of prosecution.

So, trial court rightly convicted the appellant, so, the appeal is

devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

After perusing the judgment of learned trial court and

considering the oral and documentary evidence, I do not see any

legal or other grounds to interfere with the findings of the Court

below.

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the

present FIR was lodged against the appellant in the year 1980 and

he had remained in custody for more than 2 months and since

then he is facing mental trauma. Learned counsel for the appellant

also submitted that appellant has lost his job and all retiral

benefits. So, the sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial

court be reduced to order undergone by the appellant.

Taking into consideration quantum of sentence awarded by

the trial court to the appellant while maintaining his conviction for

the offence charged, I deem it just and proper to reduce the

sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant from one year

(5 of 5) [CRLA-9/1986]

rigorous imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already

undergone by the appellant in confinement.

This criminal appeal is accordingly partly allowed. It is

ordered that the sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial

court is reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to the

period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant in

confinement but the amount of fine shall remain unchanged. The

accused-appellant shall deposit the fine amount awarded by the

trial court within one month from today and on deposition thereof

he shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellant

namely Satyanarayan Gupta son of Hari Prasad Gupta is directed

to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety

in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court,

which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation

that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against the

judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt

of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /02

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)