Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Sunil Gaur, J., reduced the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant was held guilty by the trial court of receiving a bribe of Rs 25,000 while he was working as Assistant General Manager (Administration), East Zone, Delhi in MTNL. He was found guilty of taking the bribe for releasing a security deposit of around Rs 7 lakhs in favour of the complainant Company. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs 25,000 for the offence under Section 7. He was awarded another sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs 25,000 for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2).

Aditya V. Singh, Advocate for the appellant did not challenge his conviction. He, however, prayed for reduction of sentence. It was submitted that the appellant was aged 64 years and he had to look after his ailing wife aged 63 years along with his mid-aged widowed sister who was living with him.

Upon perusal of the matter, the High Court reduced the sentence awarded to appellant to the period already undergone by him while enhancing the fine imposed from Rs 25,000 to Rs 50,000 on both counts. Considering the minimum sentence as provided under the relevant sections at the time when the offence was committed, the Court stated, under the relevant sections at the time when the offence was committed, the court stated, “sentence of more than one year already undergone by appellant will meet the ends of justice, as the minimum sentence of one year was provided by law, when the offence in question was committed by appellant.” The appeal was disposed of in the manner stated above. [Mangal Singh Arya v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7456, Order dated 28-02-2019]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A bench comprising of A.M. Sapre and Indu Malhotra, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the judgment of Delhi High Court wherein it upheld the order of the trial court convicting the appellant under Sections 7,13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant was an employee of the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking, working on the post of Inspector at the time relevant. An FIR was filed against him and one Rajinder Kumar, another employee of DESU, wherein it was alleged that the appellant had demanded Rs 4000 for installation of electricity connection in complainant’s factory. On the basis of FIR, the CBI formed a raiding party and the whole procedure was followed. On the scene, the appellant asked the complainant to hand over the money to Rajinder Kumar. As soon as Rajinder Kumar accepted the money, the raiding party came in and the accused were caught. The trial court convicted the appellant as aforestated. However, Rajinder Kumar was acquitted from all the charges. It is pertinent to note that both the accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B IPC (criminal conspiracy). The appellant filed an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed.

The Supreme Court, sitting in appeal, perused the record and noted that the case of the prosecution was that the appellant conspired with Rajinder Kumar to accept illegal gratification from the complainant. The Court was of the opinion that once Rajinder Kumar and the appellant stood acquitted of the charge of conspiracy and further, Rajinder Kumar was acquitted of the charges under PC Act, the charged against the appellant must also fall on the ground. Furthermore, in order to prove its case against the appellant, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove twin requirements of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant. It was the case of the prosecution that the money was accepted by Rajinder Kumar and since the accused were acquitted of the charge of conspiracy, it could not be said that Rajinder Kumar accepted the money as illegal gratification for it on behalf of the appellant. In such circumstances, there was no evidence to prove that the appellant accepted the money from the complainant. Resultantly, the Court held that the judgment impugned requires interference which was accordingly set aside. The appeal was. allowed and the appellant was acquitted of all the charges. [Dashrath Singh Chauhan v. CBI, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1841, decided on 09-10-2018]