Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2032 (PNJ)

Rajinder Kumar v. State Of Punjab

2010-07-14

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2010
Judgment Jitendra Chauhan, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 16.11.1999 whereby the learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur, convicted the appellants under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for carrying 25 kgs. of Katha without any licence or permit. The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, each In default of payment of fine, the appellants were ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, is re-produced herein below : "That on 20.6.1996, Surinder Kumar Kalia, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mukerian alongwith SI Gurcharan Singh, ASI Daljit Singh and other police officials was present at the Naka being held at Mansar and they were checking the vehicles. Jeep bearing No. HP-38-5565 came there from the side of Pathankot and it was stopped. It was being driven by Rajinder Kumar accused while Kishan Lal and Surinder Singh were sitting on the back seat of the jeep. The jeep was searched under rules and 25 kilograms biscuits of Katha were recovered from the jeep wrapped in a gunny bag. The accused were asked about the licence to carry the Katha but they offered a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- to Surinder Kumar Kalia DSP to hush up the matter. The DSP suspected that the Katha was being carried illegally and unauthorizedly and it was accordingly sealed with his seal SKK and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PA. He did not accept the bribe of Rs. 2000/- and this amount was also taken into possession vide a separate memo and the jeep was taken into possession through a separate memo. Personal search of the accused was also conducted, separate memo in that respect was prepared. Site plan of the spot was prepared and after the completion of investigation the accused were sent up for trial to this court." 3. Accused-appellants were charge-sheeted by the then learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Site plan of the spot was prepared and after the completion of investigation the accused were sent up for trial to this court." 3. Accused-appellants were charge-sheeted by the then learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses, i.e., complainant Surinder Kumar Kalia as PW1, Inspector Jaswant Singh as P.W. 2, DSP Ranbir Singh as P.W. 3, SI Gurcharan Singh as P.W. 4 and ASI Daljit Singh as P.W. 5. 5. Statement of the accused-appellants was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the allegations of the prosecution. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as noticed in para No. 1 of this judgment. 7. Hence this appeal. 8. The present appeal was admitted on 14.12.1999 and the sentence of the appellants was ordered to be suspended. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants does not challenge the judgment and order of the conviction/sentence on merits. However, he prays that a lenient view may be taken in the matter of sentence. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that since offence is proved, hence, no leniency should be shown to the appellants. 11. From the record, it is made out that the FIR in the instant case was registered on 20.6.1996. Thus,. the appellants by now have suffered protracted trial for about 14 years and they have already undergone sentence for about one month. 12. The Honble Supreme Court in 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 645 titled as "R. Soundarajan v. Seed Inspector, Coimbatore and another" observed as under :- "26. We have carefully perused the entire evidence and documents on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the State, in our considered view, the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The appellants were released by this Court during the pendency of these appeals and they are now not required to surrender. The fine as imposed by the trial Court, if not already paid, would be paid within four weeks from the date of this judgment" 13. In another case titled as "Umrao Singh v. State of Haryana", 1981 AIR (SC) 1723, the Honble Supreme Court observed as under :- "After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this is a case falling under the proviso of Section 16 (1)(a)(i) and therefore, for adequate and special reasons, the sentence lower than the minimum prescribed could be awarded. The High Court itself felt bound to award the minimum sentence but on merits was satisfied that if the legal position warranted the appellant could be given lesser sentence. We are in agreement with the view of the High Court. The appellant/petitioner is aged about 70 and suffering from asthama illness and has a clean past record. Besides, the percentage of deficiency that was noticed in the milk sold by him was 0.4% in the fat contents. 2. Having regard to these facts, the expression of the view of the High Court was justified. We accordingly reduce the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The sentence, of fine is maintained and we are informed that he has already paid the fine. Since he is already on bail, he should be released forthwith. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly". 14. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the sentence/imprisonment to the extent already undergone by the appellants would meet the ends of justice. 15. Consequently, the conviction of the appellants, as mentioned above, is maintained. However, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment is reduced to the one already undergone by them. The sentence of fine awarded to the appellants is, however, enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- each besides the fine already imposed by the learned trial Court. They shall deposit this amount before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16. In case, the appellants fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine with the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiapur, within the period stipulated above, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. 16. In case, the appellants fail to comply with the direction of depositing the amount of fine with the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiapur, within the period stipulated above, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The impugned order of sentence stands modified to the extent indicated above. 17. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.