Partly allowed

R.P. Verma v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2023CRLA/470/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal maintaining the conviction but modified the sentence. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in V.K. Verma regarding delays and the appellant's advanced age, imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, while the fine was enhanced.

What did the court decide?

Imprisonment reduced to period already undergone; fine enhanced to ₹25,000.

R.P. Verma Vs State of U.P. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 23

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 470 of 1995 Appellant :- R.P. Verma Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Kr. M.Rakesh,A.M. Shukla,Dr. L.P. Misra,M.S. Khan,Purnendu Chakravarty,Veer Singh,Vivek Shrotria Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Bireshwar Nath,Shiv P. Shukla

¶3

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶4

Heard Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shiv P. Shukla, learned counsel for the C.B.I

¶5

The instant appeal was filed in the year 1995 challenging the judgment and order dated 30.8.1995 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Central U.P., Lucknow, in Case No. 39 of 1988 under section 161 and section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, by which the appellant was sentenced to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 161, I.P.C. and to undergo 3 years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000.00. In default of payment of fine the appellant would have to undergo punishment for a further period of six months.

¶6

The aforesaid case arose out of a complaint filed on 28.8.1987 by Sri N.K. Karak alleging that one Mr. Chauhan, a Clerk sitting on Table No. 22 in the office of the PAO (ORS) AMC, Lucknow, had demanded a bribe of Rs. 600.00 for the final settlement of his pay and other dues.

¶7

Accordingly, a trap was set up and alongwith the named accused A.K.S. Chauhan the appellant was also arrested. On 16.12.1987 chargesheet was submitted stating that Sri A.K.S. Chauhan and Sri RP Verma (appellant) were posted and functioning as Auditor, PAO (ORS) ACM, Lucknow, during the month of August, 1987. Sri A.K.S. Chauhan had the authority to

¶8

make settlement for final payment of pension to ex-Army persons. The informant LK Karak had met Sri Chauhan on 28.8.1987, when Sri Chaun had demanded Rs. 600.00 as bribe from Mr. Karak for getting his settlement finalized.

¶9

During the trap laying proceedings, Sri N.K. Karak contacted Sri Chauhan, who directed him to contact the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant also demanded Rs. 600.00 from the informant and the deal was settled for Rs. 400.00. He took the informant outside the canteen and demanded and accepted Rs. 400.00 from him in presence of the witnesses. The bribe money was recovered from the personal search of the appellant.

¶10

During trial the named accused- A.K.S. Chauhan died. The appellant alone faced trial, which took more than 18 years for its conclusion and ultimately the appellant was convicted and sentenced. The appellant had filed the instant appeal against the conviction in the year 1995 itself.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was not named in the F.I.R. and the allegation of demand of bride was made against another person, namely, A.K.S. Chauhan, who has died during trial. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that the appellant had taken the money on the instructions of the named co-accused person, who has already died. He has further submitted that the incident is alleged to have occurred on 28.8.1987 and a period of about 35 years has elapsed since then. He has further stated on the basis of instructions that the appellant was terminated from his service on the basis of the aforesaid allegations and presently he is aged about 80 years.

¶12

Sri Chakravarty has placed before the court a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of V.K. Verma v. C.B.I., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 485 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a criminal appeal filed in the year 2014, arising out of an incident alleged to have taken place on 21.12.1984. The appellant in the aforesaid case had been trapped while demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 265.00 and he had been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one-and-a-half years and with a fine of Rs. 5000.00. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 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. The Court further observed that the appellant was aged about 76 years, the offence was of the year 1984 and three decades had elapsed since then. Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that "whether at this age and stage, it would not be economically wasteful and a liability of the State to keep the appellant in prison, is the question we have to address."

¶13

The Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded that "Having given thoughtful consideration to all the aspects of the matter, 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."

¶14

The learned counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance upon a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Diwakar Pandey v. State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 1370 of 2016, decided on 15.12.2022 , wherein relying upon the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Verma (supra) and considering the fact that the

¶15

appellant was aged about 70 years, this court reduced the sentence to the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant and the fine imposed by the trial court was increased to Rs. 50,000.00.

¶16

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Verma (supra) I am of the view that for an offence committed in the year 1987 no useful purpose will be served by sending the appellant to undergo the balance period of incarceration, while he is of the advanced age of 80 years.

¶17

As observed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it would be the liability on the State to keep the appellant in prison, causing financial burden on the State Exchequer and it will neither serve as 'reformative measure' nor as a 'deterrent' so far as the appellant is concerned.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid discussion the instant appeal is allowed only so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned , while maintaining the conviction of the appellant.

¶19

It is directed that the quantum of punishment is modified so as to make it imprisonment for the period already undergone by the appellant, and the fine of Rs. 2000.00 is enhanced by a further sum of Rs. 25,000.00 (Twenty-five thousand only), which will be deposited by the appellant within a period of four weeks before the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Central U.P., Lucknow.

¶20

In case, the appellant fails to make the requisite deposit, the C.B.I. shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before this court.

¶21

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. )

¶22

Order Date :- 20.1.2023/A.Nigam

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

R.P. Verma v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.P. Verma v. State of U.P.

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

Sanni @ Nitish @ Nitish Agrahari and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Hafeez @ Anas Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Shanker and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Ram Babu Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Naseer Ahmad Vs State of U.P.

Moti Lal and Another Vs State of U.P.