RAM SARAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE judgment and order dated 26.2.1991, appellant was convicted for commission of offences under Section 5(i)(c) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under Section 409 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo RI for ten months under Section 5(i)(c) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 409 IPC. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently and he was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for both the charges. In default, he was to further undergo RI for two months.

(2.) IT was case of the prosecution that appellant was working as Diet Clerk in the Northern Railways, Ferozepur Cantt. in the year 1982-1983. His duty was to receive money from patients, other than Railway employees, for their treatment in Railway Hospital, Ferozepur Cantt. He was bound to deposit that amount with the Divisional Cash Office or with the Superintendent, Northern Railways, Ferozepur Cantt. It was allegation against him that he had received a total sum of Rs. 996/- from many patients between 1.9.1983 and 7.11.1983 but failed to deposit the same with the officers, as mentioned above. It was alleged that he had mis-appropriated that amount.

(3.) IT is not necessary to refer to further details as Mr. Ghai appearing for the appellant has addressed arguments only regarding quantum of sentence. Counsel states that appellant is the only bread winner for his family and the matter pertains to the year 1982-1983. He continued to face agony of trial which comes to an end only on 26.2.1991. Thereafter, his appeal is pending. During this period, appellant might have suffered financially and mentally as well. He might have lost his job. During trial, he had also remained in jail for some time. Counsel further submits that in this manner, he met with sufficient punishment for alleged offences committed by him. Counsel further states that otherwise also, most of the witnesses were disbelieved by the trial Court and acceptance of money by the appellant is not fully proved. Counsel prays that under these circumstances, sentence be reduced to the one already undergone by the appellant. To support his contention, he has placed reliance upon judgment of Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 806 and many other judgments.