ROOP NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Roop Narain against the judgment and order dated 26-5- 1982 passed by Sri K. K. Singh, the then 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No. 1 of 1981 whereby the appellant was held guilty and was convicted for offences punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161, I. P. C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and for a period of six months respec tively under the two Sections. Both the sentences were ordered lo run concurrent ly. However, the sentences were ordered to be suspended, on the appellant executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. one thousand for keeping the peace and for good conduct for a period of one year and to furnish two sureties in the like amount. THIS appeal was admitted by this Court on 14-7-1982 and while admitting the appeal and issuing notices, a notice was ordered to be issued to the appellant to show cause why the sentence should not be enhanced as it was found that in a corruption case on conviction of a Government servant order of releasing on probation was passed by giving benefit of the U. P. First Offenders Probation Act. THIS criminal appeal No. 536 of 1982 was thus re-numbered as Crl. Revision No. 333 of 1982 also. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1983 of 1994 was also moved on behalf of the appellant for dismissing the appeal as not pressed be cause the appellant had undergone the period of one year of Probation.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant and learned A-G. A. were heard. Since the appellant has moved the application for not pressing the appeal, it may be found out whether the appellant was rightly con victed. The appellant was a Lekhpal and the charge against him was that he had received Rs. 10 each from some persons as a reward after he had identified them in the matter of disbursement of house grant dis tributed by the Stale. He had demanded the money as a reward afterwards, on the ground that he had incurred expenditure on some stationery for preparing the papers (documentation ). It was a petty matter of receiving Rs. 10. The trial Court found the case proved. The appellant was rightly convicted of the offence punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as well as under Sec tion 161,1. P. C. The simple question before this Court is whether the appellant could have been released by giving the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (Act No. XX of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Probation Act) in a case punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act No. 2 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Corruption Act ).

(3.) THE Court, therefore, kept in mind the evidence as well while granting the benefit. It was a simple case of illegal gratification of Rs. 10 each received from some persons. So the learned Court below had given the ground in writing and given the benefit of the Probation Act lo the appellant.