Hall Bada Bazar Bharatpur Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur v. State of Rajasthan through The Public Prosecutor

: Mr. Shyam Singh Yadav, Spl. PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL 31/07/2025 Order This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement dated

21.12.1989 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur (for brevity, ‘learned trial Court’) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.16/78 whereby, the accused-appellant (for brevity, ‘appellant’) has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Section 120-B IPC- Six months’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-; in default whereof, two months’ simple imprisonment. Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d)- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘Act of 1947’)- Six months’ simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-; in default whereof, two months’ simple imprisonment. [2025:RJ-JP:29315] (2 of 6) [CRLA-14/1990] Both the sentences to run concurrently. The relevant facts in brief are that upon receipt of various complaints in the month of April and May 1977 from Shri Reoti Prasad-Secretary, All India Postal Employees Union Class III Divisional Branch, Bharatpur, an FIR No.34 dated 30.09.1977 came to be registered at the Delhi Special Police Establishment Jaipur Branch against the appellant wherein, it was alleged that he, while working as Wireless Licensing Inspector, Bharatpur, abusing his official position demanded and accepted money by deceitful means or otherwise from radio operator for showing favours and manipulated and falsified official records. After investigation, three charge-sheets came to be filed against the appellant under Sections 120-B IPC and 477-A IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1947 which, were clubbed together for common trial. Charges under Sections 120-B and 477-A IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1947 were framed against the appellant who pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. After trial, he has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court by judgement impugned dated 21.12.1989 in the manner stated hereinabove. Eschewing merits of the case, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the incident pertains to the year 1977, the appellant is aged about 84 years and has been facing trauma of pendency of this criminal for last about 48 years and in view thereof, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence may be modified in terms that the substantive sentence may be set aside [2025:RJ-JP:29315] (3 of 6) [CRLA-14/1990] and the fine component be enhanced suitably. He, in support of his submissions, relies on following judgements of this Court:-

1. Jangli Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Appeal No.336/1986

2. Nand Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Appeal No.180/1988 Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor did not seriously oppose the prayer in view of life of the case as also age of the appellant. Heard. Considered. This Court has, in the case of Kishan Singh Vs. The State through S.P.E. (C.B.I.): S.B. Criminal Appeal No.171/1988 decided on 26.07.2023, while partly allowing the appeal involving identical facts taking into consideration the law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0015/2012:(2012) 2 SCC 648 and Haripada Das Vs. State of W.B. MANU/SC/1627/1998: (1998) 9 SCC 678 and a co-ordinate Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Ramlal Versus the State of Rajasthan, 1982 (7) RCC 120, held as under:- “In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the accused appellant both under Section 161 IPC and 5 (1) (d) read with 6 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act are set aside. The accused appellant is sentenced to a fine of [2025:RJ-JP:29315] (4 of 6) [CRLA-14/1990] Rs. 600/-under section 161 IPC and also to a fine of Rs.600/- under Section 5/ (1) (d) read with section5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months each in default of payment of fine on both the counts. Two month's time is allowed to deposit the fine in the trial Court. In case the amount is not deposited within the aforesaid period, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to serve out the sentences awarded to the accused in default of payment of fine.” Further, in the case of Omendra Dutt Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Appeal No.462/1985 decided on 115.02.2023, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in identical facts, while partly allowing the appeal and maintaining the conviction of the appellant, set aside the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to him with enhancement of fine. In yet another case of Jangli Ram Versus The State of Rajasthan: S.B. Criminal Appeal No.336/1986 decided on

05.05.2023, the same co-ordinate Bench, while considering age of the appellant who was about 70 years at the time of decision and pendency of criminal case for more than 40 years, while maintaining conviction of the accused-appellant, set aside the substantive sentence of imprisonment enhancing the find component. In the case of Nand Kishore (supra), this Court, considering the advance age of the appellant, i.e., 72 years and age of the litigation, i.e., 41 years, while partly allowing the appeal and maintaining the conviction, set aside the substantive sentence [2025:RJ-JP:29315] (5 of 6) [CRLA-14/1990] awarded under Section 161 CPC as also under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 and enhanced the fine. In the instant case, as per the material available on record, the age of the appellant in the year 1979 was 38 years and today, he is aged about 84 years. He has been facing trauma of pendency of this criminal case for last about 48 years. In the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and in the backdrop of aforesaid precedential proposition, this Court deems it just and proper to partly allow this criminal appeal in following terms:- “(i) The conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court vide judgement impugned dated 21.12.1989 is maintained. (ii) The substantive sentence awarded to him under Section 120B IPC as also under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1947 is set aside. (iii) The fine of Rs.500/- each is enhanced to Rs.5,000/- each in default whereof, he shall undergone simple imprisonment of two months for each offence. Two months’ time is granted to the appellant to deposit the aforesaid fine with the learned trial Court falling which the learned trial Court shall take necessary steps to serve out the sentence awarded to the appellant in default of payment.” In view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant namely O.P. Jain S/o Shri Shanker Lal Jain is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a surety in the like amount within four weeks before the Registrar (Judl.) of this Court [2025:RJ-JP:29315] (6 of 6) [CRLA-14/1990] which shall be effective for a period of six months with the stipulation that in that event of Special Leave Petition being filed against the judgement or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. PRAGATI/s-277 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J