SADHO RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 23.5.2015 passed by Special Judge Prevention of Corruption Act, Varanasi in Special Case No. 19 of 2013 (State Vs. Sadho Ram Singh) arising out of Crime No. 87 of 2002, under Section 7/13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station - Adalhat, District - Mirzapur, whereby the accused appellant was found guilty under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 20,000/ - fine under Section 7 and sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 20,000/ - fine under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with default stipulation.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant moved an application on 19.3.2002 to the S.P. Vigilance Department, Varanasi Sector stating that the accused Sadho Ram Singh demanded money to declare the daughter of the complainant as pass in the matriculation examination. He informed the officers concerned that he wanted to get the accused trapped. Formalities were completed and the trap was organized.

(3.) As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the complainant namely Amarjeet Kaur was the student of Chandra Shekhar Azad Inter College, Rupaudha and was appearing for the matriculation examination. Her Roll No. was 2006348 and her center for examination was Chandra Shekhar Azad Inter College, Rupaudha, Mirzapur. The accused -appellant Sadho Ram Singh was the Principal of that college, who undertook to get the girls through the matriculation examination, if they paid Rs. 10,000/ - to 20,000/ - per scholar. The accused -appellant Sadho Ram Singh has also demanded Rs. 10,000/ - from the daughter of the complainant. The complainant contacted the accused - appellant and asked him at which the appellant told him that if he wanted his daughter to pass in the matriculation examination, he will have to pay Rs. 10,000/ -, otherwise she would fail that year also as she failed in the previous year. The complainant was frightened and said that he was very poor and could not pay that amount. Further, the accused - appellant also said that he would either change the copy or facilitate copying to enable the girl to clear her matriculation examination.