Full Text
Translation output
Crl.A. 126/2019 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Order: August 20, 2019
Date of Order: August 20, 2019
CRL.A. 126/2019
RAM KISHAN .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate
RAM KISHAN .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R Crl.M.(B) 1402/2019
Vide impugned
Vide impugned
JUDGMENT
of 22nd December, 2018, appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 120B IPC read with
Section 13(1)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth referred to as the ‘PC Act’) read with Sections 409/467/468/471/119 of
IPC. Vide impugned order of sentence of 24th December, 2018, appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of
₹5,00,000/- with default clause for the offence punishable under Section
120B IPC read with Section 13 (1) (c ) of PC Act read with Section 13 (1)
(ii) of PC Act. For the offence under Section 409 of IPC read with Section
120B of IPC, appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
2019:DHC:4058 ten years and fine of ₹10,00,000/- with default clause. For the remaining offences, appellant has been sentenced to similar/ lesser terms.
Suspension of sentence is sought by appellant’s counsel on the ground that valid sanction for prosecution of appellant has not been accorded by the competent authority and this vital aspect has not been considered by the trial court in the impugned judgment in its correct perspective. Reliance was also placed upon Supreme Court’s decision in
State of Goa Vs. Babu Thomas (2005) 8 SCC 130 to submit that sanction for prosecution by incompetent authority is a fundamental error, which vitiates the conviction. It was submitted that appellant has clean antecedents and he is behind bars for more than six months and the appellant has a good case on merits and so, the sentence awarded to appellant deserves to be suspended during pendency of this appeal.
On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State pointed out that appellant’s similar application seeking suspension of sentence has been already declined on 3rd May, 2019 and so, no case for suspension of sentence is now made out.
In rebuttal, it was pointed out by applicant/ appellant’s counsel that while declining suspension of sentence, the sanction aspect could not be considered, as applicant/ appellant’s previous counsel had failed to highlight this vital aspect and the forgery angle qua applicant/ appellant is not substantiated. It was also pointed out that applicant/ appellant’s earlier application was declined at that stage and there is no bar for applicant/appellant to file a similar application on fresh grounds.
The submissions advanced by both the sides have been duly considered and the impugned judgment/ order as well as nominal roll of applicant/ appellant has been perused and thereupon, I find that the sanction aspect goes to the root of the matter and this aspect was not highlighted when applicant’s earlier application was declined. In any case, appellant has an arguable case and so, in the facts and circumstances of this case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the substantive sentence awarded to appellant is suspended during pendency of this appeal upon his furnishing bail bond in the sum of ₹20,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.
The application is disposed of while refraining to comment upon the merits of the case.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 20, 2019 r
Section 13(1)(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth referred to as the ‘PC Act’) read with Sections 409/467/468/471/119 of
IPC. Vide impugned order of sentence of 24th December, 2018, appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of
₹5,00,000/- with default clause for the offence punishable under Section
120B IPC read with Section 13 (1) (c ) of PC Act read with Section 13 (1)
(ii) of PC Act. For the offence under Section 409 of IPC read with Section
120B of IPC, appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
2019:DHC:4058 ten years and fine of ₹10,00,000/- with default clause. For the remaining offences, appellant has been sentenced to similar/ lesser terms.
Suspension of sentence is sought by appellant’s counsel on the ground that valid sanction for prosecution of appellant has not been accorded by the competent authority and this vital aspect has not been considered by the trial court in the impugned judgment in its correct perspective. Reliance was also placed upon Supreme Court’s decision in
State of Goa Vs. Babu Thomas (2005) 8 SCC 130 to submit that sanction for prosecution by incompetent authority is a fundamental error, which vitiates the conviction. It was submitted that appellant has clean antecedents and he is behind bars for more than six months and the appellant has a good case on merits and so, the sentence awarded to appellant deserves to be suspended during pendency of this appeal.
On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State pointed out that appellant’s similar application seeking suspension of sentence has been already declined on 3rd May, 2019 and so, no case for suspension of sentence is now made out.
In rebuttal, it was pointed out by applicant/ appellant’s counsel that while declining suspension of sentence, the sanction aspect could not be considered, as applicant/ appellant’s previous counsel had failed to highlight this vital aspect and the forgery angle qua applicant/ appellant is not substantiated. It was also pointed out that applicant/ appellant’s earlier application was declined at that stage and there is no bar for applicant/appellant to file a similar application on fresh grounds.
The submissions advanced by both the sides have been duly considered and the impugned judgment/ order as well as nominal roll of applicant/ appellant has been perused and thereupon, I find that the sanction aspect goes to the root of the matter and this aspect was not highlighted when applicant’s earlier application was declined. In any case, appellant has an arguable case and so, in the facts and circumstances of this case, without commenting on the merits of the case, the substantive sentence awarded to appellant is suspended during pendency of this appeal upon his furnishing bail bond in the sum of ₹20,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court.
The application is disposed of while refraining to comment upon the merits of the case.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 20, 2019 r