Deciding Authority: The Supreme Court of India
Briefly, the facts of the case are:
The prosecution witness-1 who is also the complainant i.e. Harpal Singh was President of Rice Millers Association, Kotkapura. Appellant Gurjant Singh was posted as Technical Assistant with Food Corporation of India (for short “the FCI”). On 29.5.2003, complainant, after holding a meeting with other rice millers, met the appellant regarding supply of 20 consignments of advance rice belonging to ten shellers to the FCI, on which he (appellant) demanded rupees one lakh as illegal gratification for approving the quality of the rice. The complainant reluctantly agreed to pay Rs.50,000/- on next day, i.e. 30.5.2003. The complainant disclosed about the same to Sandip Kataria (PW-2) who advised him to complain to the Vigilance Department. Thereafter, they complained the matter to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Faridkot. Hundred currency notes of denomination of Rs.500 were produced by the complainant in the office of Vigilance Department, in order to use the same to trap the appellant. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes by the Vigilance Officers and the numbers of the currency notes were jotted down in memorandum (Ext. P8). Tainted currency notes were then handed over to complainant Harpal Singh (PW-1) so that he may offer the same to the appellant in response to the demand made by him. Sandip Kataria (PW-2), shadow witness, was directed to hear the conversation between the appellant and the complainant, and to give signal to the raiding party. Baldev Singh Dhaliwal (PW-11) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, led the team along with other personnel of the Department, and the witnesses. On 30.5.2003, he along with the complainant and the witnesses went to Mahan Laxmi Rice Mills, Kotkapura where the amount was to be handed over to the appellant. The complainant and witnesses were dropped at some distance from the mill, and raiding party remained outside the mill. After some time, the shadow witness (Sandip Kataria) gave a signal to the raiding party on which it rushed to the mill. Appellant Gurjant Singh, who was found in the mill, was given identity by Baldev Singh Dhaliwal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (PW-11), and the appellant was made to dip his both hands in the glass of sodium carbonate solution on which the colour of the solution turned to light pink. The solution was then put into a clear nip (M02) with seal bearing impression “BS”, whereafter signatures of the witnesses were taken on it. Thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police asked the appellant to hand over the tainted currency notes accepted by him. The appellant produced a packet of Rs.50,000/- consisting of hundred currency notes each of denomination of Rs.500/- from the pocket of his trousers. After the numbers of the currency notes got tallied with the numbers mentioned in the memorandum earlier prepared, the appellant was arrested. After investigation, charge sheet against accused Gurjant Singh, relating to offences punishable underSection 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was submitted to the trial court.
Judgment:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sentence awarded by the trial court is harsh, and the same may at least be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. It is further submitted by him that the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court is much more than the minimum sentence prescribed under law as it stood in 2003. It is relevant to mention here that the minimum sentence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been enhanced by Act No. 1 of 2014 with effect from 16.1.2014, but incident in question relates to the period prior to said date. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of rupees one lakh would meet the ends of justice in the present case.
Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from period of three years to a period of two years without interfering with the sentence of fine, recorded by the trial court. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal stands disposed of.