LAWS(DLH)-2008-1-281

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAM KALI

Decided On January 21, 2008
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
V/S
RAM KALI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been made under Section 389 Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence. The accused has been convicted by the Trial Court under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo RI for two years under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and RI for three years under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act along with fine. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) On going through the judgment one wonders on what count bribe can be demanded by the babus sitting in the office. One of the employees of DVB had taken voluntary retirement and he was to vacate the Government accommodation. For this purpose, he was to obtain no objection certificate from DVB for surrendering possession of the Government accommodation. He deposited Rs.26,028/-, the amount of final bill and made an application for no objection certificate on 18.09.1998 and visited DVB officials several times. He had not issued no objection certificate and the accused demanded Rs.1,000/- as bribe for issuing no objection certificate to one of his own colleague. The complainant show his inability to pay this much amount and ultimately he agreed to receive Rs.500/- as bribe. Complainant made complaint and a raid was conducted. The accused instead of accepting money in his hands took complainant to terrace where old record registers were lying and told complainant to put money in one of the registers. The raid was done immediately thereafter. The money was recovered in presence of witnesses.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment shows that the accused has been convicted on the basis of cogent trustworthy evidence. It was not a case where judgment has been passed on the basis of conjectuous. Looking into the seriousness of the crime and the blatant manner in which bribe is demanded even for issuing no objection certificate to an employee. I consider that it is not a fit case for suspending the sentence. The application for suspension of sentence is hereby dismissed.