Crl.A. 156 of 2004 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2008

 PARSHURAM JHA   ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF JHARKHAND   ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal by the accused is directed against the  

concurrent findings of conviction and sentence recorded by  

the Special Judge as well as the High Court convicting the  

appellant under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and  

Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(ii)of the Prevention of  

Corruption Act, 1947 with a  sentence of one year rigorous  

imprisonment under Section 161 and rigorous imprisonment  

for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of  

payment of fine to undergo a further period of one year  

rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 5(1)(d)  

read  with  Section  5(ii),  both  the  sentences  to  run  

concurrently.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at  

great length and gone through the judgments of the trial  

court as well as the High court as also the evidence.   

3. We find that the prosecution story is supported by

Crl.A. 156 of 2004 2

the complainant Lalan Sahu and also the shadow witness P.W.  

6 as well as the Investigating Officer – P.W. 9.  We also  

see  that  circumstantial  evidence  with  regard  to  the  

phenolphthalein test also supports the prosecution story.  

4. Ms.  Bindu  K.  Nair,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant has, however, argued that the  case against the  

accused appellant had been foisted on him by Lalan Sahu as  

he bore animosity towards him and as evidence of this fact,  

a  report  had  also  been  lodged  with  the  police  by  the  

appellant  (Exhibit  B)  one  week  before  the  incident  

apprehending  implication  in  some  case.   She  has  also  

pointed out that from a perusal of evidence of P.W. 6, the  

shadow witness, it was clear that he had not heard the  

conversation between the complainant and the appellant nor  

had he seen the money being handed over or recovered from  

him on the day in question.   

5. It is true that a complaint Exhibit B had been filed  

by the appellant in the police station apprehending harm at  

the  instance  of  Lalan  Sahu.   However,  in  the  face  of  

evidence already referred to above and the fact that P.W. 9  

the  Investigating Officer had no animosity against the  

appellant, we are of the opinion that the factum of the  

complaint having been filed loses all significance.  We  

also  notice  that  in  his  examination  in  chief  on   19th  

January, 1994, P.W. - 6,  he had completely supported the

Crl.A. 156 of 2004 3

prosecution  story  but  when  he  was  recalled  for  cross  

examination  on  12th April,  1994,  he  deviated  from  his  

initial statements obviously with the intention of helping  

the appellant.  We are, therefore, of the opinion that no  

benefit can be  drawn by the appellant notwithstanding the  

fact that P.W. 6 was not declared hostile.

6. Ms. Nair has then argued that the incident happened  

in the year 1985 and as of now 25 years had elapsed since  

that day.  She has, accordingly, prayed that in the light  

of the judgment of this Court in  Bhagwan Das Keshwani &  

Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (1974) 4 SCC 611, the delay in  

the disposal of the matter and the fact that the appellant  

was now fairly advanced in age being 65, and that he had  

already undergone four months of the sentence, the sentence  

should be reduced to that already undergone.  

7. We also see from the record which is before us that  

the  appellant  has  undergone  about  four  months  of  the  

sentence.  In the light of the above facts and in the light  

of the cited judgment, we are of the opinion that the case  

of the appellant would fall under the proviso to Section  

5(2) of the Act.  We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal but  

reduce the sentence to that already undergone.

       ........................J

Crl.A. 156 of 2004 4

    [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ........................J      [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 09, 2010.