IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1329 OF 2003

MOTA RAM … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA … RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and  

order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh  

dated 31.3.2000 by which it  dismissed the Criminal  Appeal  

No.115-SB  of  1989  against  the  judgment  and  order  of  the  

Special Judge, Sirsa dated 9.2.1989 and 13.2.1989 convicting  

the  appellant  under  Section  5(2)  of  the  Prevention  of  

Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and  

under  Section  165  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code  (hereinafter  

1

referred to as “IPC”) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous  

imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.500/-  

or in default to further undergo imprisonment for a period of  

two  months  under  Section  5(2)  of  the  Act  and  to  undergo  

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section  

165  IPC.  However,  it  was  directed  that  both  the  sentences  

shall run concurrently.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are  

that the appellant was employed as Ward Servant in Primary  

Health Center, Jutawali and he used to visit Village Nohgarh  

where he came in contact with  one Om Parkash, complainant  

PW.4  who  had  got  himself  registered  in  the  Employment  

Exchange in 1982 and had been invited for an interview for  

the post of Ward  Servant scheduled to be held on 19.10.1987  

at Civil Hospital, Sirsa.  The appellant gave the impression to  

Om Parkash, PW.4-complainant that he would be able to help  

him  in  selection  as  a  Ward  Servant  provided  he  make  

2

arrangement  of  Rs.2,000/-.   Accordingly,  Om  Parkash  

complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the appellant at Bus  

stand, Dabwali.  After 2-4 days, the appellant represented to  

Om Parkash that he could not get his work done with the said  

amount  of  Rs.2,000/-  and,  therefore,  he  should  arrange  a  

further sum of Rs.4,000/-.  After 4-5 days, the complainant  

Om Parkash paid Rs.4,000/- to the appellant at Civil Hospital,  

Sirsa.  The complainant Om Parkash visited Civil Hospital in  

order to know the result of the selection and came to know  

that he was not selected.  Thus, he contacted the appellant  

and  asked  him  to  return  the  amount  paid  for  getting  the  

appointment.  The appellant continued prolonging the matter  

for  3-4  months  and  during  this  period  the  appellant  

sometimes  gave  Rs.100/-  to  Om  Parkash  and  sometimes  

Rs.2,00/- and in this way he paid a sum of Rs.4700/- to him.  

Appellant refused to return the balance amount of Rs1300/-  

to the complainant.  Thus, the complainant Om Parkash sent  

application  to  the  Chief  Minister,  Haryana,  through  a  

3

registered letter raising his grievance. During this period the  

appellant  paid  a  sum  of  Rs.1,000/-  and  subsequently  on  

30.8.1988 the remaining balance amount of Rs.300/-.  For the  

payment of balance amount of Rs.300/-, the appellant got a  

receipt executed by the complainant Om Parkash in presence  

of  several  witnesses.   Though  the  amount  had  been  paid,  

however on the complaint sent by the complainant to the Chief  

Minister of Haryana, investigation was started and appellant  

was charged under Section 5(2) of the Act and under Section  

165 of the IPC.

3. During the trial, prosecution examined eight witnesses in  

support of its case and the appellant/accused took the plea  

that he had taken the loan from the complainant Om Parkash  

which he had paid and he had falsely been implicated in the  

case because of his enmity with one Mani Ram who belonged  

to  Congress  Party  and  was  in  relation  of  the  then  Chief  

Minister  of  Haryana.  The  Trial  court  after  appreciating  the  

evidence reached the following conclusions:-

4

i) The complainant Om Parkash was unemployed and got  

himself  registered with the Employment Exchange.   He was  

called for interview for the post of ward servant in which he  

was not selected.  

ii) The complainant had paid initially a sum of Rs.2,000/-  

and subsequently Rs.4,000/- to the appellant and it could not  

be  a  loan  for  the  reason  that  Om  Parkash  himself  was  

unemployed  and  not  in  a  capacity  to  advance  loan  to  any  

person.

iii) The  amount  so  advanced  to  the  appellant  by  the  

complainant  could  not  be  loan  and  it  was  an  illegal  

gratification.   Sometimes Rs.100/-  and sometimes Rs.200/-  

had  been  refunded  to  the  complainant  by  the  appellant,  

though the entire amount had been paid.  

5

iv) Procuring a receipt for a sum of Rs.300/- and endorsing  

it as a refund of loan in presence of several witnesses was not  

normal  behaviour of the appellant.  

v) The  question  of  involving  him falsely  at  the  behest  of  

Mani Ram was a false plea and concocted story as no enmity  

or strained relationship between the appellant and said Shri  

Mani Ram could be established nor the factum of any good  

relationship  between  the  said  Shri  Mani  Ram  and  the  

complainant could be proved.   

4. In  view  thereof,  the  appellant  was  convicted  and  

sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.  

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before  

the  High  Court  which  was  dismissed  after  affirming  the  

findings recorded by the trial court.  Hence this appeal.  

6

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  Mr.  Rajesh  Sharma  

submitted that in fact complainant had advanced a loan and it  

was not an illegal gratification.  The same has been returned  

to the complainant and at the time of paying the balance loan  

of Rs.300/-, a receipt was signed by the complainant as well  

as  2-3  witnesses  endorsing  that  this  was  the  payment  of  

outstanding dues of loan advanced by the complainant to the  

appellant  and,  therefore,  the  entire  prosecution  case  is  

improbable.   More so,  the punishment  of  one year rigorous  

imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- is disproportionate to the  

charge proved against him and, therefore, the appeal deserves  

to be allowed.

7. In spite of service none appeared for the State. Thus, we  

have gone through the record of the case with the assistance  

of the learned counsel for the appellant.   

8. There is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be  

held that the findings of facts recorded by the courts below are  

7

perverse being based on no evidence or contrary to the record.  

In fact not even a suggestion had been given and made to the  

complainant Om Parkash that he was in a position to lend  

money to the appellant.  In cross-examination the complainant  

rather stated that complainant had borrowed the amount from  

his  brother  in  law  -  Mohan  Lal.   Learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant could not satisfy the court that the complainant was  

in a position to lend money to the appellant.   

9. The question of having the receipt only for the balance  

amount  of  Rs.300/-  in  presence  of  several  witnesses  itself  

reveal  that  it  was  not  a  normal  human  behaviour.  No  

explanation  could  be  furnished  by  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant that as if the appellant had not taken the receipt for  

the amount earlier paid by him to the complainant what was  

the occasion to get the receipt from him in presence of several  

witnesses only for a sum of Rs.300/-.  Therefore, it is evident  

that  the  appellant  wanted to  create some evidence  to  show  

8

that  money  so  paid  to  him  was  a  loan  and  not  an  illegal  

gratification.  

10. We do not see any infirmity in the concurrent findings  

recorded by the courts below and the appeal is liable to be  

dismissed.   

11. So far as the issue of sentence is concerned, in view of  

the  provisions  of  Section  5(2)  of  the  Act,  the  minimum  

sentence a court could award is one year and it may extend to  

7 years and a fine can also be imposed.  None of the grounds  

submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it was a  

very old case; appellant had already served about 6 months in  

jail;  Appellant had refunded the amount taken by him from  

the complainant;  the  complainant  himself  had been abettor  

and could have been a co-accused for an offence punishable  

under Section 109 IPC, can be the mitigating circumstance for  

which  the  Court  may  reduce  the  sentence  taking  into  

consideration the proviso to Section 5(2) of the Act.  As the  

9

courts below have awarded the minimum sentence prescribed  

under  the  Act,  the  facts  of  the  case  do  not  warrant  any  

interference with the quantum of  sentence also.  The appeal  

lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.  

…………………………………….J. (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma)

…………………………………….J. (Dr. B.S. Chauhan)

New Delhi; May 28, 2009.

10

11

  Digital Proforma   

1. Case No. : Criminal Appeal No. 1329 of 2003

2. Date of decision : 28.5.2009

3. Cause Title : Mota Ram vs.

Stae of Haryana

4. Coram : Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan

5. Date of C.A.V. : 21.5.2009

6. Judgment delivered Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan by :

7. Nature of judgment : Non-reportable  Whether reportable

12

13

14