SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application is filed by the appellant praying inter alia for grant of suspension of sentence, in respect of impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.1.2011 and order on sentence dated 29.1.2011. Under the judgment of conviction, the Special Judge, Delhi has held the appellant guilty and convicted him for committing offences under Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(for short 'the Act'). Under the order on sentence, the appellant has been awarded sentence to undergo RI for a period of two years and a fine of '3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of two months under Section 7 of the Act. He is further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and a fine of '3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of two months under Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. However, the appellant was given the benefit available under Section 428 Cr.PC.

(2.) IN the instant case, the appellant is a Head Constable working in PS Geeta Colony. The case of the prosecution was that on 8.9.2006, the appellant called the complainant, Vinod Kumar(PW-8) in the police station and informed him that a lady, Lata Chauhan had lodged a complaint against him. The appellant demanded a bribe of '10,000/- from the complainant for not registering an FIR against him. The amount was settled at ' 5,000/-and the complainant gave '1,000/- to the appellant with a promise to pay '4,000/- on 9.9.2006. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi w'rth the allegation that the appellant had demanded a bribe for dosing the complaint of Ms.Lata Chauhan. As per the prosecution, a raiding party was constituted with an ACP leading the team and the appellant was caught red handed accepting the bribe. Charges were framed against the appellant to which he pleaded that he was not guilty and claimed trial. The trial has culminated in his conviction as noted above.

(3.) CASES relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be treated as ordinary cases, where sentence ought to be suspended just for the asking. In such cases, the complainant alone is not a victim, but the sufferer is the society at large, whose interests ought to be placed on a higher pedestal and the offender treated on a stricter footing. In the case of State of M.P. and Ors. Vs. Ram Singh 2000 I AD (S.C.) 466 = 2000 SCC (Crl.) 886, the Supreme Court observed as below: -