Partly allowed

Chhote Singh v. State of U.P. Thur. Cbi/Acu-Vi New Delhi

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2023/610/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal maintaining the conviction. Considering the appellant's advanced age, health ailments, and long litigation delay, the court reduced the imprisonment term to the period already undergone and increased the fine to Rs. 1 lakh.

What did the court decide?

Imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; additional fine of Rs. 1 lakh imposed; bail bonds cancelled.

Chhote Singh Vs State of U.P. Thur. Cbi/Acu-Vi New Delhi — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 610 of 2015

¶3

Appellant :- Chhote Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thur. Cbi/Acu-Vi New Delhi Counsel for Appellant :- Deepak Kumar Bhola,Surya Kant Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Amarjeet Singh Rakhra,Shiv P. Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as Mr. Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent - CBI, and gone through the record.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "PC Act") read with Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "CrPC") has been filed, impugning the judgment and order dated 19.5.2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 5, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 9 of 2003, arising out of RC No.02(A)/2001, lodged at Police Station CBI/ACU VIth, New Delhi, convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant as follows:-

¶7

i. under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-; and

¶8

ii. under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section13(2) of the PC Act three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

¶9

It was further directed that for default in deposition of the fine, the accused-appellant will have to undergo six months additional imprisonment in each sentence.

¶10

The accused-appellant, who was employed as police constable, was the personal security officer of Member of Parliament (hereinafter referred to as the "MP"), Late Rajendra Agnihotari from 03.11.1991 to 02.08.1994. Allegation against the accused-appellant is that from 09.03.1993 to 27.02.1994 he obtained travelling allowances of Rs. 1,80,408.30 the bills of the travelling allowances were verified by the then MP, Late Rajendra Agnihotari; the accused-appellant submitted the bills for undertaking travels to Delhi, Lucknow, Sagar (Madhya Pradesh), Moth, Orai, Lalitpur, Bhopal and Kanpur by Shatabdi Express and Taxi. It is further alleged that the accused-appellant was also got paid dearness allowance in an illegal manner on the basis of city mileage. It is further alleged that from 9.5.1993 to 22.12.1993 the accused-appellant submitted forged bills

¶11

regarding travels undertaken by him by bus, taxi and rail; as per log book of Gypsy, bearing registration no. UMK-3400, the accused-appellant had not undertaken journeys/travels for the same period for which the Gypsy was used by MP, Late Rejendra Agnihotari and, therefore, there was no question for the accused-appellant, who was personal security officer of MP, Late Rejendra Agnihotari to undertake the journeys/travels for which he submitted the bills.

¶12

The CBI, after completing the investigation, filed chargesheet and when the accused-appellant denied the charge and claimed for trial, the trial commenced and after analyzing the evidence, the accused-appellant was found to be guilty for the offence for which he was convicted and sentenced, as mentioned above.

¶13

Mr. Surya Kant Mishra, learned counsel for the accusedappellant, submits that the accused-applicant is a 60 years old man, suffering from various ailments; he got voluntarily retired in the year 2020; he has already deposited the fine amount which was awarded to him, along with punishment and, therefore, looking at the advance age of the accused-appellant and facts and circumstances of the case he does not want to contest the appeal and the appeal, so far as conviction is concerned, may be dismissed. In respect of sentence, the learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that considering the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court reported in (2014) 3 SCC 485 (V.K. Verma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), this Court may reduce the sentence to the sentence already undergone by the accused-appellant and increase the fine to the extent, which this Court deems just and appropriate.

¶14

Mr. Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent - CBI, has no objection for dismissing the appeal, so far as conviction is concerned, however, in respect of sentence, he submits that the statute prescribes minimum of sentence and until & unless there is overwhelming circumstance, which would warrant this Court to reduce the sentence from the minimum as prescribed under the statute, this Court should not reduce the sentence to the sentence already undergone. It is further submitted that case of the accused-appellant is based on documentary evidence and in absence of testimony of any witness, the case against the accused-appellant could have been proved. It is further submitted that the trial Court's findings, so far as merit is concerned, are sound and do not require any interference. At the most, it is left to the Court in view of the judgment in V.K. Verma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (supra) to award appropriate sentence and fine as this Court deems fit and proper

¶15

in the facts & circumstances of the case.

¶16

I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

The case relates to the year 1993-94 when the accusedappellant was personal security officer of MP, Late Rajendra Agnihotari. The accused-appellant got voluntarily retired from service in the year 2020 and he is almost 60 years of age. The trial got concluded and the judgment of the conviction and sentence was pronounced on 19.05.2015 and this appeal has remained pending almost 8 years before this Court. The learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that the accused-appellant is suffering from various ailments. In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in V.K. Verma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation's case (supra) has held that if the facts & circumstances of the case so warrant such as advance age of the accused or ailments etc then the Court may reduce the sentence even from the minimum which is prescribed under the statute. Paragraphs 8 to 13 of the V.K. Verma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation' case (supra), which are relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

¶18

8. The long delay before the courts in taking a final decision with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the accused is one of the mitigating factors for the superior courts to take into consideration while taking a decision on the quantum of sentence. As we have noted above, the FIR was registered by CBI in 1984. The matter came before the Sessions Court only in 1994. The Sessions Court took almost ten years to conclude the trial and pronounce the judgment. Before the High Court, it took another ten years. Thus, it is a litigation of almost three decades in a simple trap case and that too involving a petty amount.

¶19

9. In Ashok Kumar v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1980) 2 SCC 282 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 426] , the commission of offence of theft was committed in 1971 and the judgment of this Court was delivered in 1980. The conviction was under Section 411 IPC. This Court having regard to the purpose of punishment and "the long protracted litigation", reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the convict.

¶20

10. In Sharvan Kumar v. State of U.P. [(1985) 3 SCC 658 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 437] , the commission of offence was in 1968 and the judgment was delivered in 1985. The conviction was under Sections 467 and 471 IPC. In that case also, the long delay in the litigation process was one of the factors taken into consideration by this Court in reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.

¶21

11. In Ajab v. State of Maharashtra [1989 Supp (1) SCC 601 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 602] also, this Court had an occasion to examine the similar situation. The offence was committed in 1972 and this Court delivered the judgment in 1989. The conviction was under Section 224 read with Section 395 IPC. In that case also "passage of time was reckoned as a factor for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone". This

¶22

Court in that case, while reducing the substantive sentence, increased the fine holding that the same would meet the ends of justice. 12. The appellant is now aged 76. We are informed that he is otherwise not keeping in good health, having had also cardiovascular problems. The offence is of the year 1984. It is almost three decades now. The accused has already undergone physical incarceration for three months and mental incarceration for about thirty years. Whether at this age and stage, would it not be economically wasteful, and a liability to the State to keep the appellant in prison, is the question we have to address. Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the facts mentioned above would certainly be special reasons for reducing the substantive sentence but enhancing the fine, while maintaining the conviction.

¶23

13. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. However, an amount of Rs 50,000 is imposed as fine. The appellant shall deposit the fine within three months and, if not, he shall undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. On payment of fine, his bail bond will stand cancelled."

¶24

In view thereof, the appeal is dismissed so far as conviction is concerned. The sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone by the accused-appellant with a further fine of Rs. 1 Lac to be deposited by the accused-appellant within a period of four weeks from today. In case the accused-appellant fails to deposit Rs. 1 Lack as additional fine, he shall be arrested to undergo the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court.

¶25

Bail bonds are cancelled and the sureties are discharged.

¶26

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

¶27

Order Date :- 6.1.2023 Om

¶28

Digitally signed by :- OM PRAKASH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chhote Singh v. State of U.P. Thur. Cbi/Acu-Vi New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhote Singh v. State of U.P. Thur. Cbi/Acu-Vi New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manju Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Others

Rani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Secrt. Lko.

Gautam and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Smt. Mithilesh Chaurasiya Vs Central Bureau of Investigation / Acb Hazratganj Thru. Investigation Officer Lko.

Amar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Govt. Lko.