RESHAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE spectre of an incident which took place as far back as January 18, 1971 has been hanging on the head of the appellant for over a decade now. Resham Singh appellant who was at the relevant time employed as a Telephone Inspector at Chandigarh, was prosecuted for the alleged commission of an offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161, Indian Penal Code, by the Special Judge, Chandigarh, with the allegations that he accepted Rs. 50/- as illegal gratification from Shri Harnam Singh Awasthi, Advocate, Chandigarh, for showing him favour in regard to the installation of a telephone at his premises. In the earlier trial, the learned Special Judge (Mr. J. S. Mander) convicted the appellant as per judgment dated March 13, 1972. The appellant, however, carried an appeal to this Court which was decided on July 1, 1975 Reported in 1976 Chand LR (Cri) Punj and Har 169. The appeal was accepted on the ground that the sanction for the prosecution of the appellant had not been obtained from the competent authority. However, it was observed in the said judgment that it would be open to the State Government to prosecute the appellant after getting a proper sanction from the competent authority. Thereafter, a fresh sanction for the prosecution of the appellant was obtained from the Senior Superintendent, Railway Mail Service, as the appellant was found to hold a lien on the lower post of Sorter in that office. After obtaining the fresh sanction another challan was put up against the appellant. The preliminary objection raised by the appellant that the sanction had been obtained beyond the period of limitation was, however, dismissed. The appellant, therefore, faced a fresh charge under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, punishable under Section 5 (2) of the Act, as also under Section 161. Indian Penal Code, on the allegations, already noticed. In consequence of his second trial, the Special Judge. Chandigarh, once again convicted the appellant under both the Counts, but considering the fact that the appellant was an M. A. in Psychology and had suffered in relation to his physical and mental health on account of a protracted trial, he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, the appellant was sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant has, thus, filed the present appeal impugning his conviction and sentence aforesaid.

(2.) THE present appeal, as is apparent from the record was filed by the appellant on March 25, 1977, but on account of one reason or the other, the same could not be heard by various Benches where it was listed.

(3.) THE appellant has chosen to argue his appeal personally and it may be said to his credit that in spite of being not fully conversant with the intricacies of law, he has beer able to assist this Court to a considerable extent in coming to the final assessment of the matter. With the aid of the appellant, I have gone through the entire evidence produced in this case including some documents like the First Information Report which has in important bearing on the contentions put forward by the appellant.