A court in Delhi has observed that a police official demanding bribe on the threat to falsely implicate innocent persons does not deserve any leniency.
ASJ Kiran Bansal has passed the order in the case titled as State vs Sube Singh on 30.09.2019.
The Court observed "Affairs of the State are conducted through its official. Officials of the State are thus, trustee of powers on behalf of public at large. They are required to use these powers with utmost care and responsibility and when the powers are used against the public interest, the faith of the public gets reduced in the system of the government which is not a positive sign in democracy. As a member of Delhi Police, accused was expected to develop a strong ethical compass and not to let the temptations of power take him off course".
The Court further observed "The position of convict as Assistant SubInspector should have made him more responsible towards the society but he rather breached the trust. Considering the wide ramifications of the offence and the victimization of public at large and also considering the impact the offence had on society, the convict do not deserve any leniency from the court. The efforts of everyone involved in the trial so as to bring the offenders to book cannot be thrown away by taking an unreasonably lenient view on hypothetical grounds. Once the offence has been proved and the matter has resulted in conviction, it would be bounden duty of this Court to impose suitable punishment so as to create some deterrent effect in the minds of the prospective offenders".
The Court also observed "There is a general perception that police do not behave properly towards complainants, witnesses and victims of crime. Police response to most people approaching for service is perceived to be inadequate, insensitive, biased and delayed. Ordinary citizens often find it difficult to get cases registered without either bribing the police personnel or bringing some influence on them. Police is also perceived to be corrupt and partial. Such is the legacy and image of the police that a common man avoids approaching police station or seeking police help unless the circumstances are compelling".
The Court then sentenced the accused with the following:
(i) rigorous imprisonment for 2 (two) years with fine of Rs.20,000/ (Twenty thousand) for the offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'of the PC Act) in default thereof, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months.
(ii) rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) years with fine of Rs.50,000/ (Fifty thousand) for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'of the PC Act), in default thereof, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months.
(iii) rigorous imprisonment for 2 (Two) years with fine of Rs.50,000/ (Fifty thousand) for the offence punishable under section 388 IPC, in default thereof, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months.
Read the Order here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
