Dharam Vir Singh vs State Of U.P

1. The appellant, Dharam Vir Singh, was tried along with Surendra Pal Singh for offences punishable under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and they were convicted to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years under each count and to pay a fine of Rs

500.

2. The prosecution case is that Surendra Pal Singh was Sanitary and Food Inspector in Ghaziabad. At Moradnagar Bus Stand Jagdish Chandra Sharma was running a hotel. Surendra Pal Singh used to visit Moradnagar and in the course of his visits to the shop of Jagdish Chandra he used to threaten him to take a sample and demanded Rs 200 for not taking a sample. The complainant was reluctant to give bribe and he approached the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance). A trap was arranged. On October 12, 1977 the appellant who was a Vaccinator serving under Surendra Pal Singh went to the shop of the complainant for demanding Rs 200 to be paid to Surendra Pal Singh. Thereafter a Panchnama was prepared by the Police Officials and the currency notes were treated with phenolphathlein powder. The tainted money was handed over to the appellant and he put the same in his pocket. A trap party searched his person and recovered the tainted money and necessary tests were conducted. After completion of the investigation the charge-sheet was laid.

3. Both the accused denied the offence. The appellant, however, stated that currency notes were forcibly put in his pocket and when he wanted to throw them away the Vigilance people caught hold of his hands. Both the Courts below examined the evidence of the material witnesses. The High Court, however, acquitted Surendra Pat Singh since there is no sufficient evidence against him. So far as the appellant is concerned the tainted money was recovered from him his conviction was confirmed but sentence was reduced to one year's Rigorous Imprisonment under each count. The sentence of fine, however, was set aside.

4. In this appeal it is contended that the appellant, even if the prosecution case is to be believed, received the money only on behalf of Surendra Pal Singh even though an act of misconduct is made out since the appellant was working as a Vaccinator serving under Surendra Pal Singh, Sanitary and Food Inspector.

101 We have gone through the records and we see no reasons to disagree with the findings of the Courts below.

5. Now coming to the question of sentence, there are certain special reasons for reducing the same. The occurrence is said to have taken place in the year 1977. The appellant received the tainted money allegedly on behalf of Surendra Pal Singh. The appellant has lost his job and has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings for all these years and he has become old. We do not think that this is a fit case where the appellant should be sent back to Jail at this distance of time. Accordingly we confirm his conviction and reduce the sentence to the period already undergone.

6. Subject to the modification of the sentence, the appeal is dismissed.

102