Ram Avadh Singh Vs. State (Through S.P., C.B.I./SPE)
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 755-756 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1035-1036 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1035-1036 of 2000)
Petitioner: Ram Avadh Singh
Respondent: State (Through S.P., C.B.I./SPE)
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 755-756 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1035-1036 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1035-1036 of 2000)
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 09, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS / SERVICE LAWS
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Section 5 – Government servant – Conviction for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 – Interference by court under Section 5(2) – Appellant convicted for misappropriating the commission he received for purchasing certain books and sentenced to one year imprisonment and a fine of Rs 600/-. Held it was an appropriate case for exercising powers under Section 5(2). Conviction maintained by sentence reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
(Paras 4 and 5)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent.
3. The appellant has been convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 600/-.
4. The gravamen of the charge is that he purchased some books and obtained some commission which, according to the prosecution, he misappropriated. The circumstances reveal that he, in fact, wanted to deposit the commission obtained by him after deducting his travelling expenses, but the cashier refused to allow him to deposit on the ground that his superiors have directed otherwise.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we think it appropriate that the case where the Court should exercise powers under the proviso to Section 5(2) of the Act. Therefore, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, we direct that sentence awarded to him be reduced to the period already undergone.
6. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent.
3. The appellant has been convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 600/-.
4. The gravamen of the charge is that he purchased some books and obtained some commission which, according to the prosecution, he misappropriated. The circumstances reveal that he, in fact, wanted to deposit the commission obtained by him after deducting his travelling expenses, but the cashier refused to allow him to deposit on the ground that his superiors have directed otherwise.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we think it appropriate that the case where the Court should exercise powers under the proviso to Section 5(2) of the Act. Therefore, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, we direct that sentence awarded to him be reduced to the period already undergone.
6. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
