Partly allowed

Satya Narain v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Aug 2022CRLA/9/1986

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction for corruption, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the trial court's conviction. However, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the fine. Bail was granted contingent on a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Conviction upheld; imprisonment sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine amount unchanged; debtor directed to deposit fine within one month; bail granted on personal bond of Rs.25,000.

Satya Narain Vs State — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 9/1986

¶3

Satyanarayan Gupta son of Hari Prasad Gupta, Resident of Alwar

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Devendra Raghava For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶10

Order

¶11

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 22.07.2022

¶12

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 03.08.2022

¶13

Appellant has filed the appeal challenging the judgment & order dated 16.12.1985 passed by Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jaipur in Special Criminal Case No.16/1981, whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as follows:u/s 161 IPC - One year rigorous imprisonment.

¶14

U/s 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act –

¶15

Sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-; in default of payment thereof, to

¶16

further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶17

(2 of 5)

¶18

[CRLA-9/1986]

¶19

Prosecution story, in brief, is that Sua Lal lodged an oral report before Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Bharatpur that he was doing the business of grains and wanted to take loan from Khadi Board, Bharatpur for Rs.1000/-. He had given an application for this on 28.11.1980. Appellant was supervisor in Khadi Board. He demanded the bribe of Rs.200/- for survey report. He had given Rs.100/- in front of Chetram and Girraj Prasad in accused house. During the trap proceedings, two note 50 each total Rs.100/- recovered from the accused house.

¶20

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.

¶21

Charges were framed against the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶22

In order to prove its case, during trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and produced 4 witnesses in his defence.

¶23

Trial court vide judgment and order dated 16.12.1985, ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the trial court had erred in ordering the conviction and sentence of the appellant and also submitted that trial court had not read the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that evidence of complainant Sua Lal and

¶25

(3 of 5)

¶26

[CRLA-9/1986]

¶27

other witnesses Shyam Singh, Chetram and Girraj Prasad are contradictory. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that they are interested witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that Shyam Singh had enmity with the appellant, so, he used the complainant Sua Lal in lodging the false report against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the loan applications of the relatives of Shyam Singh were rejected, so, Shyam Singh annoyed with the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that complainant had given affidavit before Investigating Officer that he had lodged the report on the instigation of Shyam Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant in his defence produce the witnesses DW-1 Sugad Singh, who prepared the affidavit and stamp vendor Moti Lal. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that evidence of the independent witnesses PW-2 Girraj Kishore and PW-4 Jawahar Lal Sharma is contradictory. They clearly stated that at the time of trap proceedings, Satyanarayan clearly stated that Sua Lal had put money there. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that Lala Ram was present at that time but Investigating Officer had not investigated him. During trial, prosecution had not examined Lala Ram.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that as per prosecution witness PW-5 Radhey Shyam in his statement clearly stated that no work was pending at the time of incident before the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that defence evidence clearly supported the appellant’s case. Defence DW-3 Surendra Kumar Jain had clearly stated that file was received in his office prior to incident. Learned counsel for the

¶29

(4 of 5)

¶30

[CRLA-9/1986]

¶31

appellant also submitted that defence witness DW-4 G.S. Sandhu in his evidence clearly stated that affidavit filed by Sua Lal was read over to him and he had attested the affidavit. So, the appellant be acquitted.

¶32

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that prosecution has proved the case beyond the reasonable doubt because complainant in his evidence proved the complaint by him and other witnesses had fully supported the story of prosecution. So, trial court rightly convicted the appellant, so, the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

¶33

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

After perusing the judgment of learned trial court and considering the oral and documentary evidence, I do not see any legal or other grounds to interfere with the findings of the Court below.

¶35

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the present FIR was lodged against the appellant in the year 1980 and he had remained in custody for more than 2 months and since then he is facing mental trauma. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that appellant has lost his job and all retiral benefits. So, the sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial court be reduced to order undergone by the appellant.

¶36

Taking into consideration quantum of sentence awarded by the trial court to the appellant while maintaining his conviction for the offence charged, I deem it just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant from one year

¶37

(5 of 5)

¶38

[CRLA-9/1986]

¶39

rigorous imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant in confinement.

¶40

This criminal appeal is accordingly partly allowed. It is ordered that the sentence of imprisonment passed by the trial court is reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant in confinement but the amount of fine shall remain unchanged. The accused-appellant shall deposit the fine amount awarded by the trial court within one month from today and on deposition thereof he shall be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.

¶41

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., appellant namely Satyanarayan Gupta son of Hari Prasad Gupta is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against the judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Supreme Court.

¶42

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶43

Jatin /02

Satya Narain v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Narain v. State

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

Roop Chander Vs State

Faiyaj S/O Abdul Gaffar Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Son of Shri Anadaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Kishanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Hamid Hussain Son of Shri Ismail Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Dayma @ Bali S/O Jay Kishan Vs State of Rajasthan