- (1.)Leave granted. The Appellant was tried and convicted for an offence punishable Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for having demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- subsequently settled at R '500/- in order to facilitate issue of a certified copy of an order dated 22nd August, 2001 passed by the SDM, Firozepur, in a mutation case.
(2.)The complainant's version that led to the registration of F.I.R. No. 83 with Vigilance Bureau, Firozepur Range, was that when he approached the SDM Office for a copy of the order, mentioned above, the copying clerk concerned informed the complainant that the file in which the SDM had passed the order in-question was with the Appellant who was then working as a Reader in the office of the SDM. Complainant's version is that when he approached the Appellant-Reader for sending the file to the copying clerk to enable the latter to issue a copy of the order passed by the SDM, the Appellant demanded Rs. 1,000/- towards bribe but agreed to receive Rs. 500/- for doing the needful. Unwilling to pay the bribe amount, the complainant appears to have approached the vigilance bureau who laid a trap eventually leading to the apprehension of the Appellant and recovery of the sum of Rs. 500/- paid to him. A charge-sheet was then filed before the Special Judge, Ferozepur, in Sessions Case No. 12, culminating in an order of conviction by the trial Court holding that the Appellant had indeed demanded and received Rs. 500/- towards bribe and that he had thereby committed an offence Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988. The trial Court in consequence sentenced the Appellant to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years besides payment of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment, the Appellant was directed to undergo a further imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence awarded to him, the Appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1696 of 2003 before the High Court of Punjab and Harayana at Chandigarh which was dismissed by its order dated 9th April, 2014, impugned in the present appeal, reducing the sentence to a period of 1 1/2 years only.
(3.)When this matter initially came up for preliminary hearing before this Court, we issued notice to the Respondent-State limited to the question of quantum of sentence. We have accordingly heard learned Counsel for the parties on that limited question. The demand and the consequent proceedings resulting in the prosecution of the Appellant appears to have took place as early as in the year 2001. The Appellant has during all the period faced the ignominy of a trial and conviction. He is even at present in jail undergoing sentence for the past few months.