1995 (3) TMI 492 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Trustworthiness and reliability of the prosecution's evidence.
2. Whether the appellant "obtained" pecuniary advantage.
3. Validity of the sanction accorded for prosecution.
4. Alleged prejudice due to trial under the new Act of 1988.
5. Appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Trustworthiness and Reliability of the Prosecution's Evidence:
The appellant contended that the evidence of the prosecution was not trustworthy and reliable due to discrepancies, omissions, and contradictions. However, the court found that these discrepancies were minor and did not affect the veracity of the witnesses. The court held that the evidence provided by P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 6, and P.W. 7 was credible and consistent, thereby supporting the prosecution's case.

2. Whether the Appellant "Obtained" Pecuniary Advantage:
The appellant argued that there was no proof of actual acceptance of the illegal gratification, and thus he did not "obtain" any pecuniary advantage. The court examined the evidence and found that the appellant had indeed come into possession of the money. The consistent version given by P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 indicated that the appellant asked P.W. 1 to wrap the money in a handkerchief and place it on a bag, which the appellant controlled. This act satisfied the requirement that the appellant obtained the pecuniary advantage, as he came into possession of the money. The court relied on the definitions of "obtain" from various dictionaries and concluded that the appellant had indeed accepted the bribe, thereby committing the offense.

3. Validity of the Sanction Accorded for Prosecution:
The appellant questioned the validity of the sanction, arguing that P.W. 8, who accorded the sanction, was not the competent authority. The court found that P.W. 8, the Chief Auditor, Local Fund Accounts, Bombay, was indeed the competent authority to remove the appellant from service. Although the appellant was initially appointed by the Commissioner of Nagpur Division, he was absorbed into the Local Fund Accounts Department under the control of P.W. 8. Therefore, the sanction accorded by P.W. 8 was valid.

4. Alleged Prejudice Due to Trial under the New Act of 1988:
The appellant contended that the trial was vitiated because it commenced under Section 161 IPC read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, but the trial court convicted him under the provisions of the new Act of 1988. The court found no merit in this submission, noting that the charges were reframed under the new Act when the trial commenced in 1990. No objection was raised during the trial or in the appellate court, and no prejudice was caused to the appellant as the gravamen of the charges under both Acts was the same in substance.

5. Appropriateness of the Sentence Imposed:
Considering the long duration of the criminal proceedings since 1981, the appellant's loss of job, family responsibilities, and health issues, the court decided to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. However, the court confirmed the sentence of fine with the default clause.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with the modification of the sentence of imprisonment being reduced to the period already undergone, while the sentence of fine with the default clause was confirmed.