2003 (12) TMI 673 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction upheld for bribery demands; sentence reduced due to age & circumstances. Court clarifies Section 196(2) not applicable.

The appellants were convicted under Sections 120B IPC, 161, 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for bribery demands by a public servant ... - Issues:Conviction under Sections 120B IPC, 161, 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; Reduction of sentence by High Court; Application of Section 196(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure; Presumption of guilt under Section 4 of the Act; Interpretation of Section 5(1)(d) of the Act; Official act under Section 161 IPC; Involvement of A-2 in conspiracy; Legal arguments; Factual arguments; Support from case laws; Leniency in sentencing.Conviction under Sections 120B IPC, 161, 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947:The appellants were convicted for offences under these sections and sentenced by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Central), U.P., Lucknow. The High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow, upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence. The case involved bribery demands by A-1, a public servant, to return a document to PW-3, leading to a trap set by CBI resulting in the conviction of the appellants.Application of Section 196(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure:The defense contended that the trial court could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 120B IPC without the consent of the State Government or District Magistrate. However, the Court ruled that since the offences were punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, Section 196(2) did not apply, allowing the trial court to pass the sentence.Presumption of guilt under Section 4 of the Act:The defense argued that the presumption of guilt under Section 4 of the Act did not apply to an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act as the bribe was not received by A-1 personally. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the section covers receiving bribes directly or indirectly, and not just personal receipt.Interpretation of Section 5(1)(d) of the Act:The defense claimed that the bribe was not received to render any service with the Government, but to return a document, which was not an act of the Government. The Court disagreed, stating that the act of returning the document was an official duty, making the demand for a bribe an offence under Section 161 IPC.Involvement of A-2 in conspiracy:The defense argued that A-2, though present during the bribe demand, was not part of the conspiracy as he did not benefit from the money. The Court rejected this, noting that A-2's presence and actions indicated knowledge and complicity in the bribe transaction, leading to his guilt.Support from case laws:The defense cited various judgments to support their arguments, but the Court found them inapplicable to the present case due to differing facts and circumstances, hence providing no assistance to the appellants.Leniency in sentencing:Considering the age and circumstances of the appellants, the Court reduced the sentence imposed by the High Court to 6 months, taking into account the loss of employment and prolonged litigation. The appeals were partly allowed, with the appellants required to surrender and their bail-bonds canceled.