The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence for corruption and cheating. The court held the evidence proved the appellant took money to influence a judge for acquittal, relying on precedent regarding intoxicating motive.
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence maintained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
Crl. A. No. S-416-SB of 2001
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Crl. A. No. S-416-SB of 2001 Date of Decision: 23.12.2014
Dr. Onkar @ Onkar Verma ... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
... Respondent
QUORUM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI.
Present: Mr. M.S. Kathuraia, Advocate, for Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana
-.-
RITU BAHRI, J.
Appellant Dr. Onkar @ Onkar Verma, was put on trial
for the offences under Section Sections 8 and 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the Act') and Sections 420, 384 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the Code') for accepting illegal gratification from the complainant on the assurance that he will get their relatives acquitted from the concerned judge. He was convicted and sentenced under Section Section 8 of the Act and Section 420 of the Code vide judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 27.03.2001, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (exercising the powers of Special Judge), Sirsa. Under Section Section 8 of the Act, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years
GAURAV 2014.12.24 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-2-
Crl. A. No. S-416-SB of 2001
and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and under Section 420 of the Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence this appeal by the appellant challenging the said judgment of conviction and the sentence order.
As per the case of the prosecution, Sahi Ram, Ram Singh and Gopal Ram appeared on 11.06.1999 before Mrs. Nirmal Yadav, the then learned Sessions Judge, Sirda and gave an application Ex PA containing allegations that a case under Section 376 IPC was registered against their brother and sons in which the appellant demanded Rs.2 lacs from the complainant on the assurance that he will get their relatives acquitted from the concerned Judge and in case they did not pay the amount, he will get them convicted. So the applicants paid Rs.2 lacs to the appellant-accused and the applicants were acquitted from the case but lateron they came to know that the accused had grabbed the entire amount of Rs.2 lacs. The applicants also expressed their desire to make their statements before the learned Sessions Judge.
On getting application, learned Sessions Judge directed the applicants Sahi Ram etc to come to the Court for making their statements on 14.06.1999. The applicants came to the Court and they were referred to JMIC, Sirsa, who recorded their statements, who also furnished their affidavits before the Magistrate, which were sent by the Magistrate to learned Sessions Judge, who further sent the complaint Ex PH along with application Ex PA. Thus, a case was registered against the appellant, which was investigated by DSP Pat Ram, who recorded disclosure statement of accused and the accused got effected
GAURAV 2014.12.24 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-3-
Crl. A. No. S-416-SB of 2001
the recover of currency notes of Rs.20,000/- and registered sale deed from the almirah of his house, which were taken in to possession under recovery memo Ex PS. The accused also got effected the recovery of gold necklace and gold Shingar Patti from her Ram gold Smith, which were also taken into possession under recovery memo Ex PR. The copy of statement of accounts of accused Ex P3 was also taken into possession by the DSP.
After completion of investigated, the accused was challaned. Thereafter, charges were framed against him under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and Section 420 of the Code, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses.
In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. He pleaded that he deposited the amount of Rs.30,000/- with Union Bank of India on 11.08.1998 after taking loan from City Finance Company, Sirsa and the amount of Rs.20,000/- and sale deed Ex P1 were forcibly taken from his house by the police and he did not make any disclosure statement for recovery of cash and jewellery. He denied having demanded or obtained any amount from Sahi Ram etc for getting their relatives acquitted in a case under Section 376 of the Code. However, no evidence was led by the appellant in defence.
A gang-rape case under Sections 376/342/34 of the ode was registered at P.S. Sadar Sirsa against Phulla Ram, Pawan Kumar, Trilok and Bansi which was finally decidedon 25.08.1998 by the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirsa resulting in to acquittal of the accused. Pawan Kumar and Trilok are the son and nephew respectively of Shir Ram, Phulla Ram is brother of Gopal Ram and Bansi is the brother of
GAURAV 2014.12.24 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
-4-
Crl. A. No. S-416-SB of 2001
Ram Singh. The prosecution preferred an appeal against the judgment of acquittal in which notice was issued to the accused Phulla Ram etc. After receipt of the notices, Sahi Ram, Gopal Ram and Ram Singh who are close relatives of the accused of gang-rape case, approached Mrs. Nirmal Yadav on 116.1999 who had by that time joined as District and Sessions Judge, Sirsa and produced the application Ex PA before her containing the allegations that a cae under Section 376 of the Code had been registered against their relatives and appellant-accused told them that if they pay him Rs.2 lacs he will pass on that money to Judge Sahib and get their relatives acquitted failing which he will get them convicted and they gave him Rs.2 lacs and their relatives were acquitted in that case but on enquiry, they came to know that the appellant had himself grabbed the money.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
The trial Court after going through the evidence led by the parties came to a conclusion that the accused has not furnished any evidence from where he got this substantial amount of Rs.96,000/-. His explanation about the deposit of Rs.30,000/- in his back account ExP3 about 14 days before the conclusion of trial of gang rape case has also gone unsubstantiated. The two transactions i.e deposit of Rs.30,000/- in the bank and purchase of a house in the name of his wife for Rs.96,000/- after five months of conclusion of the trial in the gang rape case are the two circumstances lending support to other evidence on the file showing that the accused had obtained Rs.2 lacs from the applicants for exercising his influence with the trial Judge for securing acquittal of their relatives.
Reference was made to judgment of Dewan alias Vasudevan vs. State, 1999 Crl. L.J 1005 wherein it was held as
GAURAV
2014.12.24 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Crl. A. No. S-416-SB of 2001
-5-
under:-
“It is not necessary that the person who had received the gratification should have succeeded in including the public servant. It is not even necessary that the recipient of the gratification should, in fact, have attempted to induce the public servant. The receipt of gratification as a motive or reward for the purpose of inducing the public servant by corrupt of illegal means will complete the offence. But it is necessary that the accused should have the animus or intent at the time when he received gratification that it is received as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant by corrupt or illegal means.”
It, thus, stands proved on record that the accused had indulged in corruption and had cheated the applicants by obtaining Rs.2 lacs from them for getting their relatives acquitted but the entire drama was exposed when the relatives of Sahi Ram etc received notices from this Court in the gang rape case and on enquiry by the applicants, they came to know that the accused had grabbed the amount from them. He has rightly been convicted for the aforesaid offences. The sentence awarded to the appellant also commensurates with the offence committed by him. Consequently, finding no merit in this appeal, I hereby dismiss the same.
23.12.2014 G Arora
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE
GAURAV 2014.12.24 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to quash the conviction and sentence for taking illegal gratification to influence a public servant.
Whether the sentence awarded for offences under Sections 8, 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 420 IPC is adequate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dewan alias Vasudevan vs. StateRelied on¶40
Dewan alias Vasudevan vs. State, 1999 Crl. L.J 1005
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dr. Onkar @ Onkar Verma
State of Haryana
Ritu Bahri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
