Partly allowed

Prashant Tyagi v. Central Bureau of Investigation Thru Its Director

Allahabad HC4 Jan 2019CRLA/5965/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal appeal partly on the point of sentence. The court dismissed the appeal on conviction, holding no illegality. It reduced the default imprisonment from fifteen months to five months simple imprisonment for IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act charges, releasing the appellant after serving the rigorous term.

What did the court decide?

Revised sentence allows only five months simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine; appellant to be released immediately after serving this term if not wanted elsewhere.

Prashant Tyagi Vs Central Bureau of Investigation Thru Its… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on 18.12.2018 Delivered on 04.01.2019

¶3

Court No. - 50

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5965 of 2016

¶5

Appellant :- Prashant Tyagi Respondent :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru' Its Director

¶6

Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Misra

¶7

Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.

¶8

Heard Sri Ramesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned counsel appearing for Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) and perused the record.

¶9

This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Prashant Tyagi against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.10.2016 passed by Special Judge/Anti Corruption/A.D.J., C.B.I., Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Special Case No. 39A of 2011, under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of I.P.C. and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (D) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-C.B.I. Dehradun whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 120-B I.P.C. for one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo one month additional imprisonment, under Section 420 I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo three months additional imprisonment, under Section 467 I.P.C. for eight years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo six months additional imprisonment, under Section 468 I.P.C. for two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo one month additional imprisonment, under Section 471 I.P.C. for one year rigorous

¶10

¶11

imprisonment and under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, he shall undergo three months additional simple imprisonment. All the sentences shall run concurrently and the imprisonment already undergone by the appellant shall be adjusted under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned judgment is illegal and against the evidence on record. There is no material on record to show and to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had participated in the alleged occurrence at any stage. Sentences awarded by the court below is too severe. The appellant has already undergone the sentences awarded by the court below and he is languishing in jail on account of default of payment of fine.

¶13

According to prosecution case, the appellant had embezzled Rs.2,82,500/- from several account holders by forged withdrawal.

¶14

After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and charges were framed against the appellant to which he pleaded to be not guilty.

¶15

In order to proved its case, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses. They proved the guilt/offence against the appellant without reasonable doubt.

¶16

No cross-examination was done by the appellant and statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The appellant confessed the offence and stated that all the witnesses, as stated above facts, are true but he pleaded that he is a poor person and requested that minimum sentence may be awarded.

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the appellant as well as District Government Counsel (Criminal), the impugned

¶18

¶19

judgment and order was passed. Hence, this appeal.

¶20

Learned A.G.A. submitted that sentence was passed on the basis of confessional statement of accused/appellant. According to Section 375 Cr.P.C., no appeal lies and this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal on the point of conviction.

¶21

Section 375 Cr.P.C. is quoted below for ready reference: Section 375. No appeal in certain cases when accused pleads guilty .-Notwithstanding anything contained in section 374, where an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be no appeal.-

¶22

(a) if the conviction is by a High Court; or

¶23

(b) if the conviction is by a Court of Session, Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first or second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.

¶24

From perusal of aforesaid section, the argument of learned A.G.A. has force and Court has only power to hear the appeal on the point of legality on sentence.

¶25

It is also pertinent to mention here that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not been cross-examined completely and statement given in-chief has not been controverted, hence it cannot be disbelieved. Apart from that, the appellant has confessed the offence in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Hence, on the point of conviction, this Court finds no illegality and the view taken by the court below is a plausible view. Hence, no interference is called for in appeal and on the point of conviction, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

From perusal of the report of Jail Superintendent of Saharanpur, it reveals that on 28.9.2018 seven years, eleven months and seven days rigorous imprisonment has already been served out by the appellant and twenty three days was rest, but in case of default of payment of fine, the appellant is languishing in jail according to Prastar-40 of the Jail Manual.

¶27

¶28

From perusal of the record, it also transpires that in case of default of payment of fine, total imprisonment awarded was fifteen months rigorous imprisonment. The appellant is a very poor person and is not able to deposit the fine and whole sentences of imprisonment awarded by the court below has been served out by him.

¶29

In these circumstances, this Court finds that ends of justice would be served, in case of default of payment of fine under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act i.e. total five months simple imprisonment is awarded.

¶30

In the above backdrop, the appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentence only.

¶31

On the point of conviction, the appeal is dismissed. On the point of sentence, the appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is sentenced in case of default of payment of fine under Section 120-B I.P.C. for one month, under Section 420 I.P.C. for one month, under Section 467 I.P.C. for one month and under Section 471 I.P.C. for one month and Under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for one month i.e. total five months.

¶32

The court concerned is directed to release the appellant immediately after serving out the sentence, if he is not wanted in any other case.

¶33

Office is directed to send the copy of this order along with lower court record to the court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months, which shall be kept on record.

¶34

A copy of this order be also sent to the concerned Superintendent of Jail, where the appellant is serving the sentence.

¶35

¶36

Order Date :- 04.01.2019

¶37

Prashant Tyagi v. Central Bureau of Investigation Thru Its Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Tyagi v. Central Bureau of Investigation Thru Its Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Pal and Others Vs State

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rampal and Another Vs State of U.P.

Bharat Singh Alias Ankush Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Surendra Gupta @ Ojha Vs State of U.P.

Babbu Vs State of U.P.