Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 437 (RAJ)

Nand Kishore v. State of Rajasthan

2024-03-11

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : Mr. Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant (for brevity "the appellant") against the judgment dated 30.04.1988 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Kota (for brevity "the learned trial Court") in Misc. Criminal Suit No.1/1984 whereby, while convicting him under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947"), he has been sentenced as under:- (i). under Section 161 IPC:- 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-; in default whereof, 1 month's rigorous imprisonment. (ii). Under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947:- 1 year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 100/-; in default whereof, 1 month's rigorous imprisonment. 2. Both the sentences to run concurrently. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that on a written compliant dated 02.03.1983 (Exhibit-P-1) filed by Shri. Narendra Prakash Pancholi-an auto rickshaw driver, an FIR No.20/1983 came to be registered under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of Act of 1947 wherein, it was alleged that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 10/- for not registering a complaint against him of traffic violation committed on 01.03.1983. As per the prosecution case, the appellant was caught red-handed on 02.03.1983 accepting the aforesaid bribe. After investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed under the aforesaid provision. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of Act of 1947. After trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove. 4. After investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed under the aforesaid provision. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of Act of 1947. After trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that although, the demand is not corroborated by any evidence and from the testimony of the independent witnesses to the trap proceeding/recovery, i.e., S/Shri. Yogendra Kumar Jain (PW-2) and Ram Meena (PW-3), it is apparent that neither did they witness the complainant paying bribe to the appellant nor, they heard the conversation which took place in between them at that time; however, eschewing merits of the case, in view of the fact that the appellant is aged about 72 years and is facing trauma of this criminal case for last about 41 years, he would feel contended if while maintaining the conviction, the sentence awarded to him is modified in terms that while waiving the substantive sentence, the fine may be enhanced suitably and appropriately. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon a judgment of this Court dated 26.07.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.171/1988: Kishan Singh v. The State through S.P.E. (C.B.I.). 5. He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor did not seriously oppose the prayer in view of advance age of the appellant and life of the case. 7. Heard. Considered. 8. This Court has, in the case of Kishan Singh (supra) partly allowed the appeal involving identical facts taking into consideration the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das v. State of W.B. (1998) 9 SCC 678 and a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ramlal v. the State of Rajasthan, 1982 (7) RCC 120 wherein, it was 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. 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." 9. Further, in the case of Omendra Dutt Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Appeal No.462/1985 decided on 15.02.2023, a coordinate Bench of this Court has, in identical facts, while partly allowing the appeal and maintaining the conviction of the appellant, set aside the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him with enhancement of fine. 10. In yet another case of Jangli Ram v. The State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Appeal No.336/1986 decided on 05.05.2023, the same coordinate Bench, while considering age of the appellant who was about 70 years at the time of decision and pendency of criminal case for more than 40 years, while maintaining conviction of the accused-appellant, set aside the substantive sentence of imprisonment enhancing the fine component. 11. In the present case, as per the age of the appellant recorded in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the year 1987, his present age is about 72 years and he is facing mental trauma of pendency of this criminal case for last about 41 years for a petty bribe amount of Rs. 10/-. 12. In view thereof and in the backdrop of aforesaid precedential proposition, this Court deems it just and proper to partly allow the appeal. 13. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 30.04.1988, the substantive sentence awarded to him under Section 161 IPC as also under Sections 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 is set aside. The fine of Rs. 13. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 30.04.1988, the substantive sentence awarded to him under Section 161 IPC as also under Sections 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 is set aside. The fine of Rs. 100/- awarded under Section 161 IPC is enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- and fine of Rs. 100/- awarded under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 is also enhanced to Rs. 2,000/-, in default whereof, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month for each offence. Two months' time is granted to the appellant to deposit the aforesaid fine with the learned trial Court failing which the learned trial Court shall take necessary steps to serve out the sentence awarded to the appellant in default of payment. 14. In view of the provisions of Section 437A CrPC, the appellant namely Nand Kishore Son of Madho Lal Singh is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and a surety in the like amount before the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court which shall be effective for a period of six months with the 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court.