MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant against the judgment and order dated 29.10.1984 passed by learned Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jaipur in special Criminal Case No. 13/79 'whereby the appellant had been convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Section 161 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter for short referred to the Act of 1947') to one year's rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sec. 161 IPC and one year's rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5(i)(d) of the Act of 1947 in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are that on 20.10.78, appellant, working as Jamandar in Chokri Topkhana Desh Area in the Municipal Council Jaipur, was a public servant and had accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 30/- from Sita Ram, Safaiwala (PW.1), employee in the Municipal Council, Jaipur and said gratification was accepted in pursuance of his earlier demand for recommending his medical leave application for the period 21.6.78 to 30.9.78 when said Sita Ram was absent from duty. The complainant Sita Ram, on complaint submitted to the Addl. S.P., Anti Corruption, Jaipur City a trap was arranged on 20.10.78 and the appellant was caught red handed in the presence of motbirs Ramesh Kumar (PW.3) and Om Prakash (PW.12) accepting Rs. 30/- (Articles 3 to 5) from Sita Ram while on duty in Man Kayasth Ki Gali, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. The case was registered and after completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and he was tried for the afore-mentioned offences, by the learned Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jaipur which culminated in his conviction and sentence on 29.10.84 in the manner as mentioned hereinabove.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said judgment & order, appellant filed this appeal on various grounds. However, during the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments to the extent of modification in the sentence stating that more than four decades was passed since the incident as incident pertains to the year 1978 when the appellant was 38 years old and was a low paid safaiwala who on account of serious ailment is bed ridden at present and is in his old age and a frail health. It was further submitted that he has already suffered incarceration of 55 days and he is ready to pay enhanced amount of fine if any.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that corruption is rampant in our society and that it is for this reason that the legislature has laid down the minimum sentence in the Act. According to him, prayer for leniency in awarding sentence should not be accepted because the corruption by public servant has become a gigantic problem and large scale corruption retards the nation-building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. My attention was drawn to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of M.P. vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, 2006 8 SCC 693 and Madukar Bhaskarrao Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra-, 2001 AIR(SC) 147