Rajasthan High Court
Madan Lal vs State on 30 November, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 445/1987
Madan Lal, S/o Achal Das, R/o Christian-ganj, Ajmer
----Accused-Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta with
Mr. Sourabh Pratap Singh,
Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj,
Mr. Anoop Meena,
Mr. Garuav Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, GA-
Cum-AAG with
Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
30/11/2022
This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant
against the judgment dated 16.10.1987 passed by the learned
Special Judge, Anti Corruption Bureau Case, Jaipur in Special
Criminal Case No.16/1984 whereby, the accused-appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under:
"Section 161 IPC:- Simple imprisonment for six
months + Fine of Rs.50/-; in default, simple
imprisonment for one month.
Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for brevity, "the Act
of 1947"):- Simple imprisonment for six months + Fine
of Rs.50/-; in default simple imprisonment for one
month."
(2 of 4) [CRLA-445/1987]
The facts in brief are that a written report dated 26.03.1984
was filed by the complainant Shri Lekhraj with the Additional
Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur alleging
therein that for forwarding his application for loan to the bank, the
appellant, an employee with the District Rural Development
Agency, was demanding a bribe of Rs.50/-. After his arrest in the
aforesaid case, the police after investigation filed charge-sheet
against the accused-appellant under Section 161 IPC and Section
5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947. After his trial
under the aforesaid provisions, the appellant has been convicted
and sentenced vide judgment impugned dated 16.10.1987, as
stated hereinabove.
Although, inviting attention of this court towards the cross-
examination of the complainant Shri Lekhraj (PW-2) and Shri
Krishan Kumar Dubey (PW-9), the Credit Planning Officer in the
District Rural Development Agency at the relevant time, learned
counsel for the appellant submits that neither any work of the
complainant was pending with him as his loan application was
already forwarded to the concerned bank nor, the demand is
established; but, eschewing merits of the case, he submits that he
would feel contended if, while maintaining the conviction,
substantive sentence awarded to him vide judgment impugned is
set aside. He, in support of his submission, relied upon a
judgment of this court in case of Ram Lal Vs. The State of
Rajasthan, 1982 (7) R.Cr.C., 120.
Learned Government Advocate-cum-AAG did not seriously
oppose the prayer in view of life of the case and age of the
accused-appellant.
Heard. Considered.
(3 of 4) [CRLA-445/1987]
The accused-appellant, who at present, is aged about 70
years, is facing the instant criminal case for last more than 28
years. The allegation against him is of accepting bribe of a petty
amount of Rs.50/-. In identical circumstances, this Court has, in
case of Ramlal (supra), held as under:
"In the result, the appeal is partly
allowed. The sentence of imprisonment
awarded to the accused appellant both
under Section 161 IPC and 5 (1) (d) read
with 6 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act are
set aside. The accused appellant is
sentenced to a fine of Rs. 600/- under
section 161 IPC and also to a fine of Rs.
600/- under Section 5/ (1) (d) read with
section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. He shall undergo simple imprisonment
for three months each in default
of payment of fine on both the counts. Two
month's time is allowed to deposit
the fine in the trial Court. In case the
amount is not deposited within the aforesaid
period, the trial Court shall take necessary
steps to serve out the sentences awarded
to the accused in default of payment of
fine."
In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed. While
maintaining the conviction of the appellant, substantive sentence
of imprisonment awarded to him under Section 161 IPC and
Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Act of 1947 is set
(4 of 4) [CRLA-445/1987]
aside. The accused-appellant is sentenced to a fine of Rs.1000/-
under Section 161 IPC and also to a fine of Rs.1000/- under
Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947. He shall
undergo simple imprisonment for one month each in default of
payment of fine on both the counts. Two month's time is allowed
to deposit the fine in the learned trial Court failing which it shall
take necessary steps to serve out the sentences awarded to the
accused in default of payment of fine.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/168
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
