Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2458 (DEL)

SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF DELHI

2007-09-26

Shiv Narayan Dhingra

body2007
( 1 ) THIS application for suspension of sentence has been made on behalf of the appellant, who was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was working in MTNL, Mayur Vihar exchange. The complainant had applied for transfer of his telephone installed at his residence to his business premises on 16th July, 1998. Despite his reminders telephone was not transferred. He then went to the Exchange, where he was told by the appellant that he would have to pay Rs. 1,000/- as bribe for transfer of telephone. He negotiated and the appellant agreed to Rs. 500/- as bribe. Thereafter, the complainant not willing to pay the bribe, reported the matter to Anti Corruption Branch and the appellant was caught red handed by the raiding team after he had accepted the tainted money. The amount of Rs. 500/-was recovered from his pocket. ( 2 ) THE appellant has been sentenced by the Trial Court to undergo RI for two and a half years with fine under Section 13 (2) and RI for one and half years with find under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant argued that there were discrepancies in the statement of witnesses and the Trial Court believed the witnesses, although, they were not trustworthy. He also submitted that hearing of the appeal will take long time, therefore, the bail should be granted to the appellant. ( 4 ) I have perused the judgment and findings given by the Trial court, suffice it to say that the Trial Court has considered all the aspects of the case and has relied upon the witnesses after considering their testimony and reliability. It is a case of the appellant being caught red handed after he accepted the bribe. It is painful to note that in India the administration in public offices has become so corrupt that for even small works like shifting of telephone, rectification of telephone, installation of telephone one needs to pay bribe. The bribe culture has eaten up not only the moral fabric but has eclipsed the development of the country. It is painful to note that in India the administration in public offices has become so corrupt that for even small works like shifting of telephone, rectification of telephone, installation of telephone one needs to pay bribe. The bribe culture has eaten up not only the moral fabric but has eclipsed the development of the country. ( 5 ) CORRUPTION nowadays has become a cancer in the society and this crime cannot be looked upon as a trivial offence. Supreme Court in State of M. P. And others v. Ram Singh 2000 SCC (Cri.) 886 observed as under: "8. Corruption in a civilized society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time, is sure to maliganise (sic) the polity of the country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as a plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to such a dreaded communicable diseased is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti-people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence " shaking of the socio-economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society. " ( 6 ) I consider that appellant is not entitled for suspension of sentence at this stage. The application for suspension of sentence is hereby dismissed.