Dinesh Maheshwari JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 14.05.2009 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2001 (Old No. 1518/1991) whereby the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant herein.
2. A few facts need mention to appreciate the short controversy involved in this appeal.
3. The Appellant was working as "Kanoongo/Patwari" at Didihat, Uttarakhand. He was prosecuted for commission of the offences punishable Under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act") read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
4. The charge against the Appellant was that he assured one Gopal Singh that he would not arrest him nor would implicate him in one pending criminal case, if he pays him Rs. 1200/-.
5. It was the case of the prosecution that the Appellant while accepting the illegal gratification of Rs. 1200/- from Gopal Singh on 30.09.1985 was caught by S.P. (Vigilance) in a trap arranged for this purpose at the behest of Gopal Singh.
6. The Sessions Judge, Pithoragarh, by order dated 05.08.1991, found the case of the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the Appellant for the offences punishable Under Section 5(2) of the PC Act read with Section 161 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- Under Section 5(2) of the PC Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years Under Section 161 Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
7. The Appellant felt aggrieved by his conviction and sentence and filed an appeal in the High Court. By impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the appeal. The High Court maintained the conviction insofar as it pertains to the offence punishable Under Section 5(2) of the PC Act but interfered in quantum of sentence awarded and accordingly reduced the jail sentence from four years to one year and reduced the fine amount of Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 3000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. So far as the offence punishable Under Section 161 Indian Penal Code is concerned, the High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence from three years to one year. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
8. The Appellant (Accused) felt aggrieved and has filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.<........