Case Brief: Ramrao Limbaji Garud v. State Of Maharashtra 18 August 2010

Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Harjit Singh Bedi, Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Date of Judgment: 18 August 2010
Facts of the Case: The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 161 of   the   Indian   Penal   code   and   Section 5(1)(d)   read   with   Section  5(2)   of   the Prevention of Corruption Act, 947. The trial court vide its judgment dated 5th January 1990 acquitted the accused. An  appeal was thereafter taken by the State of Maharashtra to the High Court and the High Court by its judgment dated 26th March, 2003 reversed the judgment of acquittal and convicted the accused under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered   him to pay a fine   of Rs. 2000/- and in default to suffer one month rigorous imprisonment  and a sentence of three   months   rigorous   imprisonment   for   the   offence   under Section 5(1)d and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the order of conviction the appellant is before the Supreme Court in the present appeal by way of special leave.
Judgment: The Court heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Court found that the   Special   Judge   had   rendered   a somewhat confused judgment acquitting the appellant without discussing the ocular evidence and the documents on record. The High Court had on the contrary discussed the evidence denovo as the Special Judge had not done his job properly and on   consideration   of   the   evidence,   had   reversed   the judgment of the Special Judge.
Decision: The Court did not incline to interfere in the appellant’s conviction.   However, keeping in view the fact   that   the   incident   had   happened   in   the   year   1985 and the litigation had gone on for more  than 25  years and  in the  light  of  the judgment of this Court in Dharam Vir v. State   of   U.P. reported   in   1994   Suppl. (1) SCC 100, the Court reduce   the   sentence   of   imprisonment to that already undergone by the appellant.  Bail bonds stood discharged.   The appeal was allowed to the above extent.
 
By:  Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *