ORDER
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
Crl. M.B. No. 1280/2007
1. This application under Section 389(2) Cr.P.C read with Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence awarded to the appellant vide order dated 30th August, 2007. The appellant has been convicted by the trial court under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (in short, ‘the Act’) and was sentenced to undergo RI for two and half years for offence under Section 7 and RI for 3 years for offence under Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the sentences to run concurrently.
2. It is argued by counsel for the appellant that initially one more person by the name of Ram Kumar was also made an accused in this case but he was discharged by the trial court. It was he who had accepted the bribe money. The appellant had not accepted the bribe money. While Ram Kumar has been discharged, the appellant has been wrongly convicted. The other argument of the counsel for the appellant was that the trial court has placed reliance on the audio tape without there being any identification of the voices by CFSL. The CFSL report only gave transcription of the audio tape. Neither the tape of sample voice were sent to CFSL nor the voices were identified. Placing reliance on the audio tapes was therefore illegal and the appellant could not have been convicted on the basis of such audio tapes. Counsel for the appellant also argued that there were several discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses and the conviction was bad and that it was a good case for suspension of sentence.
3. A perusal of record would show that it was appellant who had demanded the bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the complainant in order to settle the electricity case against the complainant which was pending with appellant. The complainant, who did not want to pay the bribe money, made a complaint to the anti corruption department and he also brought with him Rs. 3000/- for raid since he could not arrange more amount with him. The appellant was to receive money at the house of the complainant. The raiding party took positions at the house of the complainant. The appellant came to the house of complainant along with Ram Kumar. It was appellant who demanded the bribe money from the complainant. However, when complainant wanted to hand over the currency notes to him, he told the complainant to hand over the same to Ram Kumar and asked Ram Kumar to take the money and keep the same. Ram Kumar took the money and kept the same in his pocket.
4. Learned trial court after considering the entire evidence and record, came to conclusion that Ram Kumar was neither a bribe demander nor the person to whom the bribe was to be given. He was merely brought by the appellant along with him. There were no allegations of conspiracy, therefore, Ram Kumar was discharged.
5. I consider if the bribe demander brings another person with him to accept and receive the bribe money on his behalf, he cannot claim innocence. The plea taken by appellant’s counsel that the appellant is innocent, prima facie, must fail.
6. I have perused the record and it would show that the evidence against the appellant was not only that of audio tapes. The audio tapes were prepared at the time of when appellant came to the house of the complainant in order to take bribe. The conversation between the appellant, complainant and Ram Kumar was recorded in the audio tape. The audio tape was merely used as a corroborative piece of evidence by the prosecution. The conviction of the appellant was done by the trial court after considering the entire evidence led in the case including the evidence of members of the raiding party. The conviction is not based merely on the basis of audio tape. Even if audio tapes are taken out of the evidence, it cannot be said that the appellant was convicted without any evidence by the learned trial court.
7. Considering the prevalent rampant corruption in the Government departments and the blatant demand of bribe even for official duties, I consider that once the trial court has come to a conclusion that the case against the appellant stood proved, that conclusion cannot be brushed aside at the time of granting suspension of sentence, so lightly.
8. The offence committed by the appellant cannot be considered so trivial in nature that the appellant should not be sent to jail even for a day. No doubt, the hearing of appeal may take some time, but a perusal of the impugned judgment would show that it is not a case where conviction had no merits and acquittal was the only conclusion which could be arrived at, as advocated.
9. 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 Ors. 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.
10. In view of my foregoing discussion, I do not find it a fit case for suspension of sentence. The application is hereby dismissed.
11. The application stands disposed of in above terms.