E-Paper
CBI court awards 4-yr jail to former government official in bribe case
Special judge Bhawna Jain awarded Chauhan four-years rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (demanding and accepting an undue advantage/bribe by a public servant) and another four years under Section 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act (criminal misconduct by a public servant)
A Special CBI court has sentenced former senior assistant Shyam Singh Chauhan to four years of rigorous imprisonment in a 2017 bribery case, observing that corruption by public servants is “paralysing” public institutions and requires deterrent punishment.
Special judge Bhawna Jain awarded Chauhan four-years rigorous imprisonment under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (demanding and accepting an undue advantage/bribe by a public servant) and another four years under Section 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act (criminal misconduct by a public servant).
The court also imposed a fine of ₹10,000 under each section, with six months simple imprisonment in default of payment of each fine. The two four year sentences will, however, run concurrently, meaning Chauhan will serve a maximum substantive sentence of four years. The fine has been paid.
The case dates back to 2017 arising from a complaint filed by Devendra Pal Singh, a resident of Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. Singh had applied to the office of the deputy chief controller of explosives, Manimajra, for a blaster’s licence for his firm, Tata Chand Malhotra and Sons, based in Mandi.
When the licence did not arrive, Singh contacted the office and alleged that senior assistant Chauhan demanded ₹8,000 as a bribe for issuing the licence.
Unwilling to pay, Singh approached the CBI, following which a case was registered. On July 11, 2017, the agency laid a trap and arrested Chauhan while he was allegedly accepting the bribe near the Manimajra office. The CBI had also recorded the conversation between the complainant and Chauhan after receiving the bribery complaint.
During sentencing, Chauhan sought leniency, telling the court that he had a clean service record, had never faced a departmental inquiry and had no criminal antecedents apart from the present case. He also cited his family circumstances, stating that his three unmarried daughters, son and elderly ailing mother were dependent on him.
The CBI opposed leniency, arguing that Chauhan had misused his official position to demand and accept the bribe while portraying a major portion of the amount as being meant for Vivek Kumar, controller in the office of the deputy chief controller of explosives, Manimajra.
The court observed that the manner in which Chauhan had “very clandestinely” demanded and accepted the bribe, while pretending that a substantial portion was meant for another official and only a smaller portion for himself, established his intention.
Referring to Supreme Court (SC) judgments in Neeraj Dutta vs state (government of NCT of Delhi) and state of MP vs Shambhu Dayal, the court stressed the impact of corruption on public institutions.
The court observed that corruption by public servants had reached a “monstrous stage” and said such conduct was “paralysing” the functioning of public institutions and hindering democratic governance.
“Therefore, he deserves to be punished to deter such like minded people in the society to curb the menace of corruption,” the court said.
The court directed that any period already spent by Chauhan in detention during investigation, inquiry or trial be set off against the sentence under Section 428 of the CrPC. It also ordered preparation of his warrant of commitment.
