SUBHASH CHAND PHULL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.M.B. 1008/2014 (for suspension of sentence)

(2.) THIS is an application moved by the appellant seeking suspension of his sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant has been convicted u/s. 7/13(1)d, 13(2) of PC Act read with Section 120B of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and fine of Rs. 50,000, in default simple imprisonment for 6 months u/s. 7 of PC Act; RI of 2 years and fine of Rs. 25,000, in default SI of 2 months u/s. 120B IPC; 3 years RI and fine of Rs. 50,000, in default SI for 6 months u/s. 7 of PC Act read with Section 120B; RI for 5 years and fine of Rs. 50,000/ -, in default SI for 6 months u/s. 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act read with section 120B IPC respectively. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that demand and acceptance of money for doing a favour in discharge of official duty is sina qua non to the conviction of the accused. Moreover, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the appellant was in a position to do a favour or influence a decision either way. The impugned judgment fails to meet this requirement of law. It was alleged by the complainant that the appellant Subhash Chand Phull was a member of Delhi Jal Board and demanded huge amount of bribe from him to award the contract and on not paying the same, he ordered for retendering. It was submitted that this allegation deserves outright rejection as NDMC work was never approved or awarded in favour of the complainant. Moreover the complainant admitted that appellant had no role in respect of the work awarded by NDMC. According to him, he met the accused for the first time in second week of February in respect of his work and that in second week of February 2006, the accused had taken retirement. Since the appellant was no longer in service in the second week of February 2006, as such it is highly improbable that the complainant would meet a retired person to seek a favour. The allegations that on not paying the bribe amount, appellant ordered retendering is again false, as decision to tender the work took place on 30.03.2006 by the Board comprising of 17 persons. Moreover the appellant had no financial power to sanction or award the work as his financial power was limited to Rs. 50 lakhs only whereas the work had cost component of Rs. 24 crores. The further allegations regarding some work in Trans Yamuna area was not subject matter of the charge and as such the findings of the learned Trial Court without framing any charge in this regard caused prejudice to the appellant.

(3.) LASTLY it was submitted that the appellant is in custody for the last more than 6 months. He is aged about 68 years and is suffering from Parkinson disease, as such during the pendency of the appeal, the sentence be suspended and he be released on bail.